Bowers D. D. S. Forensic Testimony

Science, Law and Expert Evidence
1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-0-12-397260-6
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 296 Seiten

Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Expert Evidence-favored with an Honorable Mention in Law & Legal Studies at the Association of American Publishers' 2015 PROSE Awards-provides a clear and intuitive discussion of the legal presentation of expert testimony. The book delves into the effects, processes, and battles that occur in the presentation of opinion and scientific evidence by court-accepted forensic experts. It provides a timely review of the United States Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) regarding expert testimony, and includes a multi-disciplinary look at the strengths and weaknesses in forensic science courtroom testimony. The statutes and the effects of judicial uses (or non-use) of the FRE, Daubert, Kumho, and the 2009 NAS Report on Forensic Science are also included. The presentation expands to study case law, legal opinions, and studies on the reliability and pitfalls of forensic expertise in the US court system. This book is an essential reference for anyone preparing to give expert testimony of forensic evidence. - Honorable Mention in the 2015 PROSE Awards in Law & Legal Studies from the Association of American Publishers - A multi-disciplinary forensic reference examining the strengths and weaknesses of forensic science in courtroom testimony - Focuses on forensic testimony and judicial decisions in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence, case interpretations, and the NAS report findings - Case studies, some from the Innocence Project, assist the reader in distinguishing good testimony from bad

C. Michael Bowers is an Associate Clinical Professor at the Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. He is also the Deputy Medical Examiner in Ventura, California. Dr. Bowers is a practicing forensic dentist and consultant who has testified and worked on hundreds of cases where dental evidence has been involved. He is a former Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, a Senior Crime Scene Analyst for the International Association for Identification (IAI) and has written other articles, chapters and books on forensic dentistry. He owns and operates his own dental practice in Ventura, CA.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Bowers D. D. S., J. D.

Leseproben

Introduction
Jurimetrics Journal Fall, 2010 Reflection THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON FORENSIC SCIENCES: WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE BENCH AND BAR Harry T. Edwards1a Copyright © 2010 by American Bar Association; Harry T. Edwards Editor’s Introduction On May 6, 2010, the Honorable Harry T. Edwards delivered a presentation to the Conference on The Role of the Court in an Age of Developing Science & Technology. Sponsored by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the conference was held in Washington, D.C. on May 6-7, 2010. Jurimetrics is pleased to present the text of Judge Edwards’s lecture. CITATION: Harry T. Edwards, The National Academy of Sciences Report on Forensic Sciences: What it Means for the Bench and Bar, 51 Jurimetrics J. 1-15 (2010). On February 18, 2009, after more than two years of work, the Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.”1 The committee was composed of a diverse and accomplished group of professionals. Seven of the 17 committee members are prominent professionals in the forensic science community, with extensive experience in forensic analysis and practice; 11 members of the committee are trained scientists (with expertise in physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, biostatistics, statistics, and medicine); 10 members of the committee have Ph.D.’s, 2 have M.D.’s, 5 have J.D.’s, and one has an M.S. in chemistry. Because of our extensive research and countless interviews, the committee’s project involved an extraordinary amount of time. In addition, there were many hours of committee meetings, which involved deliberations between forensic analysts and practitioners, experts in the physical and life sciences, a former federal prosecutor, a defense attorney, a crime lab director, a medical examiner, an engineer, statisticians, educators, and a judge. Our interactions were challenging and fruitful; in the end, despite our differing professional perspectives, the committee was unanimous in its findings and recommendations. With the benefit of hindsight, I can now say that the substance of the committee’s report was not difficult to write. The problems that plague the forensic science community have been well understood for quite some time by thoughtful and skilled forensic professionals, and their views and concerns were well known to us. For example, in 2003, when he was President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Kenneth Melson, a former prosecutor and now Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, wrote: [M]ore research is needed in the techniques and science already in use. With the importance of forensic science to truth and justice, the science employed and relied upon by judges and juries must be valid. It does not matter how well forensic scientists abide by testing protocols or how reliable the techniques are, if the underlying science does not actually reveal what the expert says it does. Method validation studies and new research must be ongoing even in the areas of traditional forensic science disciplines. Justice demands good science and we have an obligation to provide it. We can no longer expect the courts or public to accept the truth of our science merely because we say it is good. In order to maintain the integrity of both the science and the justice system, we must prove that it is so. Moreover, we cannot overlook the fact that scientific evidence was presented at many of the trials where innocent people were convicted and later exonerated by DNA. The evidence in many of the trials showed associations between the defendants and the victims or crime scenes. While modern day science is exonerating the innocent, it is also showing us that some inferences drawn from scientific associations in the past were wrong. The use of DNA to exonerate wrongly convicted persons has certainly taught us lessons about forensic science in general and underscores the importance of continuing research.2 Thomas Bohan, the most recent Past President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, published a similar statement earlier this year.3 When Congress passed legislation in 2005 directing the NAS to create an independent committee to study the forensic science community, it did so at the urging of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations.4 The legislation establishing our committee was, in effect, a response to a call for help from forensic science professionals. The committee spent an enormous amount of time listening to testimony from and reviewing materials published by numerous experts, including forensic practitioners, heads of public and private laboratories, directors of medical examiner and coroner offices, scientists, scholars, educators, government officials, members of the legal profession, and law enforcement officials. Not only did we examine how the forensic disciplines operate, we also carefully considered any peer-reviewed, scientific research purporting to support the validity and reliability of existing forensic disciplines. Additionally, we invited experts in each discipline to refer us to any pertinent research. Committee members and staff spent countless hours reviewing these materials. And before the report’s release, it was peer reviewed by outside experts in the fields of science, law, and forensic practice. I started the NAS project with no skepticism regarding the forensic science community. Rather, I assumed, as I suspect many of my judicial colleagues do, that the forensic disciplines are well grounded in scientific methodology and that crime laboratories and forensic practitioners follow proven practices that ensure the validity and reliability of forensic evidence offered in court. I was surprisingly mistaken in what I assumed. Our committee found that although there are many dedicated and skilled forensic professionals, the quality of practice in the forensic disciplines varies widely, and the conclusions reached by forensic practitioners are not always reliable. The reasons for this include: • the paucity of scientific research to confirm the validity and reliability of forensic disciplines and establish quantifiable measures of uncertainty in the conclusions of forensic analyses; • the paucity of research programs on human observer bias and sources of human error in forensic examinations; • the absence of scientific and applied research focused on new technology and innovation; • the lack of autonomy of crime laboratories; • the absence of rigorous, mandatory certification requirements for practitioners; • the absence of uniform, mandatory accreditation programs for laboratories; • the failure to adhere to robust performance standards; • the failure of forensic experts to use standard terminology in reporting on and testifying about the results of forensic science investigations; • the lack of effective oversight; and • a gross shortage of adequate training and continuing education for practitioners. These findings5 and the committee’s accompanying recommendations6 have been taken very seriously by those with an understanding and interest in forensic science. Just after our report issued, Carol Henderson, who preceded Dr. Bohan as President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, said: We have been presented with an opportunity to make forensic science serve justice even more reliably and effectively. This is the time to build better “forensic science” .... The report identified shortcomings in research, education, and standards of practice in the Nation’s crime labs. In-depth research and analysis of options leading to strategic policy and implementation plans is needed.7 The overall reaction to the report really has been extraordinary. Moreover, interest in the report’s findings and recommendations has not waned during the 14 months since the date of issuance. Why is that? Perhaps it is because no one has meaningfully refuted the committee’s finding that “[w]ith the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, ... no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”8 The good news is that important developments are now underway to help the forensic science community get its house in order: • The Senate Judiciary Committee is pursuing hearings aimed at corrective legislation. • The White House National Science and Technology Council has chartered a Subcommittee on Forensic Science to address problems identified in the report. • The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research arm of the Department of Justice, has launched an effort to promote new research on forensic sciences, including a recent grant of $866,764 to UCLA to conduct a comprehensive study of error rates in latent fingerprint evidence.9 • In September 2009, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences issued a press release saying: “[a]fter extensive consideration, discussion, and...