Lord Chief Justice Flashcards
What recommendations were made In this paper?
Publishing results: validate the science used in as hoc situations
Pool information: strengthen databases
Primers: standardised documents to allow jury to understand evidence
Forensic science regulator: should have more power to shut down non-complying labs (now more than ever)
What was the title of this paper?
Expert evidence: the future of forensic science in criminal trials
What did he say about the science?
Some science isn’t reliable and too much faith is being put into forensic science because of the csi effect
As science is developing there is a risk of testing the science in courts as opposed to the evidence
More research needs to be done and more validation needs to be done by pooling databases and publishing results
What did he say about the current market?
Confidential research has no place. Market integrity should be second place to the criminal justice system. Results should be being published and the databases being pooled
What was said about regulation?
More regulation was needed as different labs use different DNA testing methodologies
They should have more power now than ever to force compliance with standards
What was said about the use of evidence in courts?
Production of standardised ‘primer’ documents covering the most popular areas of forensic science, presented in a simple way.
Used when there is consensus in the forensic science community on evidence (such as DNA)
What issues could be present with ‘primers’?
Bias - you can’t talk about how DNA profiling works with out stating the word ‘match’
Juries overconfidence In knowledge
Who writes them? Who funds them? What about scientific developments?
What’s the need of a forensic expert if they can just read the information?
Juries should be peers in order to make sound decisions. Thinking they know better because they have are equipped with the scientific knowledge (presumably) before the court could be problematic.
