Expert Evidence In The Criminal Justice Process

The book is a comprehensive narration of the use of expertise in international criminal trials offering reflection on standards concerning the quality and presentation of expert evidence. It analyzes and critiques the rules governing expert evidence in international criminal trials and the strategies employed by counsel and courts relying upon expert evidence and challenges that courts face determining its reliability. In particular, the author considers how the procedural and evidentiary architecture of international criminal courts and tribunals influences the courts’ ability to meaningfully incorporate expert evidence into the rational fact-finding process. The book provides analysis of the unique properties of expert evidence as compared with other forms of evidence and the challenges that these properties present for fact-finding in international criminal trials. It draws conclusions about the extent to which particularized evidentiary rules for expert evidence in international criminal trials is wanting. Based on comparative analyses of relevant national practices, the book proposes procedural improvements to address some of the challenges associated with the use of expertise in international criminal trials.

This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Currently, too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence, as confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Following consultation on a discussion paper (LCCP 190, 2009, ISDBN 9780118404655) the Commission recommends that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test for expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The test would not need to be applied routinely or unnecessarily, but it would be applied in appropriate cases and it would result in the exclusion of unreliable expert opinion evidence. Under the test, expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable to go before a jury. The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test and also provides the guidance judges would need when applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert's opinion evidence might be unreliable. The Bill also codifies (with slight modifications) the uncontroversial aspects of the present law, so that all the admissibility requirements for expert evidence would be set out in a single Act of Parliament and carry equal authority.

There is an increasing trend towards greater use of and reliance on expertise to provide the necessary evidence in the fight against crime. Certain forms of expert evidence can be important and powerful tools in crime detection and proof. At the same time expert evidence can be so persuasive that the incorrect use of such evidence could lead to miscarriages of justice. At the interface between criminal justice systems and expert evidence lies the imperative to deal appropriately with expert evidence within a human rights framework. This study shows how three different countries, England and Wales, the Netherlands and South Africa, while upholding different legal traditions, often face similar problems in the realm of expert evidence. These include the often contradictory expectations of law and science respectively, the difficulties associated with the assessment and evaluation of the probative value of expert evidence as well as the problems associated with the integration of expert evidence in the criminal justice process. In the quest for answers to these questions, the author compares the 'hybrid' criminal justice system of South Africa with the 'adversarial' system found in England and Wales and the 'inquisitional' system in the Netherlands. Beginning with an examination of the meaning and nature of expert evidence, the investigation traces the role of expert evidence in pre-trial proceedings; procedural aspects of expert evidence during trial; the ability to challenge expert evidence and culminates with the dilemma of gauging the probative value of the evidence. This book contributes to the international debate about expert evidence. It is a worthy source for lawyers and judges in South Africa, the Netherlands and England and Wales.

As an increasing range of expert evidence becomes available to it, the criminal justice system must answer a series of challenging questions: should experts be permitted to give evidence on the credibility of witnesses? How should statistical evidence be presented to juries? What relevancedoes syndrome evidence have to questions of criminal responsibility? In `Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice', Mike Redmayne explores these issues. His exposition utilizes work in a number of disciplines, and draws comparisons with the law and procedure in several different jurisdictions. Whiledeveloping a general overview of the use of scientific evidence in the criminal process, Redmayne makes use of detailed examinations of particular issues, such as battered women syndrome, fingerprinting, and eyewitness expertise. Through an analysis of expert evidence, he also invites reflection ona series of wider issues, among them the function of exclusionary rules and the nature of case construction.

The global nature of crime often requires expert witnesses to work and present their conclusions in courts outside their home jurisdiction with the corresponding need for them to have an understanding of the different structures and systems operating in other jurisdictions. This book will be a resource for UK professionals, as well as those from overseas testifying internationally, as to the workings of all UK jurisdictions. It also will help researchers and students to better understand the UK legal system.

Forensic science evidence and expert witness testimony play an increasingly prominent role in modern criminal proceedings. Science produces powerful evidence of criminal offending, but has also courted controversy and sometimes contributed towards miscarriages of justice. The twenty-six articles and essays reproduced in this volume explore the theoretical foundations of modern scientific proof and critically consider the practical issues to which expert evidence gives rise in contemporary criminal trials. The essays are prefaced by a substantial new introduction which provides an overview and incisive commentary contextualising the key debates. The volume begins by placingforensic science in interdisciplinary focus, with contributions from historical, sociological, Science and Technology Studies (STS), philosophical and jurisprudential perspectives. This is followed by closer examination of the role of forensic science and other expert evidence in criminal proceedings, exposing enduring tensions and addressing recent controversies in the relationship between science and criminal law. A third set of contributions considers the practical challenges of interpreting and communicating forensic science evidence. This perennial battle continues to be fought at the intersection between the logic of scientific inference and the psychology of the fact-finder‘scommon sense reasoning. Finally, the volume‘s fourth group of essays evaluates the (limited) success of existing procedural reforms aimed at improving the reception of expert testimony in criminal adjudication, and considers future prospects for institutional renewal - with a keen eye to comparative law models and experiences, success stories and cautionary tales.

In modern criminal trials, expert evidence often plays an important role. The question as to the guilt of the defendant is often contingent upon the results of DNA analysis, polygraphs, hair comparisons, and other forensic science techniques. At the same time, through a wide variety of problems inherent to the collection and production of such evidence, the use of expert evidence in criminal litigation is often highly problematical. The vast range of problems that have been identified over the years, and the manifest presence of these problems in some of the more notorious 'miscarriages of justice' have made expert evidence one of the most debated topics in legal literature today. Many believe that in this particular field, criminal justice systems are in dire need of legal reform. This study attempts to contribute to this debate through an analysis and comparison of two legal systems that each employ a different method for expert involvement. The study seeks to identify the similarities and differences in how different legal systems deal with expert evidence. Additionally it seeks to establish what the experiences of one country can bring to another for the purpose of enhancing the cornerstone of criminal litigation: the concept of procedural fairness.