Preview

Theory and Practice of Forensic Science

Advanced search

International Forensic Cooperation and Advocacy

https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-4-43-54

Abstract

The article discusses the interaction of lawyers involved in criminal defense and the international forensic community, the principles of international cooperation in the field of forensic examination. Information is provided on forensic aspects of the activities of the United Nations, the European Criminal Bar Association and a specific case of the participation of fingerprint experts from a range of countries in a unique case on protection of an innocent victim of an expert error is described. The importance of taking into account the cognitive bias of experts and other subjective factors, as well as the role of lawyers in assessing expert opinions, is noted. The main conclusions and recommendations on the interaction of the forensic and advocate communities in current conditions are presented.

About the Authors

A. Ya. Asnis
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; “Asnis & Partners” Law Office
Russian Federation

Asnis Aleksandr Yakovlevich – Doctor of Law, Principal Researcher 

Director



Sh. N. Khaziev
“Asnis & Partners” Law Office
Russian Federation
Khaziev Shamil Nikolaevich – Doctor of Law, Attorney-at-Law


References

1. Defence Investigations in International Criminal Trials. Practitioner’s Handbook. Edited by the Defense Office of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. 2017. 218 p.

2. Khaziev Sh.N. Principles of International Law and Forensic Science. Materials of the V International Scientific and Practical Conference “Theory and Practice of Forensic Science in Current Conditions” (Moscow, January 22–23, 2015). Moscow: Prospekt, 2015. P. 482–484. (In Russ.)

3. Khaziev Sh.N. On International and National Academies of Forensic Science. Contemporary Humanitarian Studies. 2010. No. 2. P. 183–189. (In Russ.)

4. Khaziev Sh.N. The Issues of Forensic Expertise in the Activities of the European Association of Advocates. Humanities scientific researches. 2010. No. 3. P. 184–186. (In Russ.)

5. Grieve D.L. Built by Many Hands. Journal of Forensic Identification. 1999. No. 49 (5). P. 565–579.

6. Khaziev Sh.N. Assistance of the International Forensic Community in Exposing Erroneous Identification in the Shirley McKie Case. The Advocate. 2008. No. 9. P. 3–8. (In Russ.)

7. MacKie I., Russell M. Shirley McKie: The Price of Innocence. Edinburg: Birlinn, 2007. 208 p.

8. Policing. Forensic Services and Infrastructure: Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit. New York: United Nations, 2010. P. 11.

9. Kukucka J., Kassin S.M., Zapf P.A., Dror I.E. Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 452–459. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001

10. Asnis A.Ya. Subjectiviti and Objectiviti in Forensic Science and Modern Law Practice. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2016. No. 1 (41). P. 60–62. (In Russ.)

11. Eeden C.A.J., de Poot C.J., van Koppen P.J. The Forensic Confirmation Bias: A Comparison between Experts and Novices. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2018. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 120– 126. http://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13817

12. Garrett B.L., Neufeld P.J. Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions. Virginia Law Review. 2009. Vol. 95. No. 1. P. 1–97.

13. Meterko V. Strengths and Limitations of Forensic Science: What DNA Exonerations Have Taught Us and Where to Go from Here. West Virginia Law Review. 2016. Vol. 119. P. 639–649.

14. Cooper G.S., Meterko V. Cognitive Bias Research in Forensic Science: A Systematic Review. Forensic Science International. 2019. Vol. 297. P. 35–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016


Review

For citations:


Asnis A.Ya., Khaziev Sh.N. International Forensic Cooperation and Advocacy. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019;14(4):43-54. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-4-43-54

Views: 845


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1819-2785 (Print)
ISSN 2587-7275 (Online)