Edmond, Gary

Found, Bryan

Martire, Kristy

Ballantyne, Kaye

Hamer, David

Searston, Rachel

Thompson, Matthew

Cunliffe, Emma

Kemp, Richard

San Roque, Mehera

Tangen, Jason

Dioso-Villa, Rachel

Ligertwood, Andrew

Hibbert, David

White, David

Ribeiro, Gianni

Porter, Glenn

Towler, Alice

Roberts, Andrew

2016

This article provides an explanation of the duties and responsibilities owed by forensic practitioners (and other expert witnesses) when preparing for and presenting evidence in criminal proceedings. It is written in the shadow of reports by the National Academy of Sciences (US), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry and a recent publication entitled ‘How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for Lawyers’. The article examines potential responses to questions focused on the need for scientific research, validation, uncertainties, limitations and error, contextual bias and the way expert opinions are expressed in reports and oral testimony. Responses and the discussion is developed around thematics such as disclosure, transparency, epistemic modesty and impartiality derived from modern admissibility and procedure rules, codes of conduct, ethical and professional responsibilities and employment contracts. The article explains why forensic practitioners must respond to the rules and expectations of adversarial legal institutions. Simultaneously, in line with accusatorial principles, it suggests that forensic practitioners employed by the state ought to conduct themselves as model forensic scientists.

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(5), p. 496-537

1834-562X

0045-0618

https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/27388

en

Taylor & Francis

Model forensic science

Journal Article

Publication