On the Criteria for Evaluating an Expert's Opinion and Forensic Methods by Participants in the Legal Proceedings
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2022-1-27-37
Abstract
The issues of assessing the reliability of experts’ opinions are common for Russian and Anglo-Saxon legal proceedings. In the Russian legislation there are no legal norms or regulated rules defining this procedure. At the same time, in the USA there is Rule 702 “Expert Witness Testimony” of the Federal Code of Evidence which establishes four criteria that courts should consider when assessing the admissibility of the testimony of a forensic expert. Besides, based on court decisions, Fry and Daubert standards have been adopted. They determine criteria for methods used in conducting forensic examination in the United States. The article analyzes and evaluates the compliance of expert methods applied in Russia with the Fry and Daubert standards. The analysis shows that not all methods meet the criteria of Daubert standard. In particular, the structures of the so-called subjective methods do not provide calculations of a known or potential error rate as well as a mechanism for monitoring the conduct of various stages of a study. The article also discusses other foreign projects aimed at minimizing erroneous conclusions and reforming the system of forensic examination: the Innocence project, reports prepared by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS report) and the US Presidential Council for Science and Technology (PCAST report). The authors believe that it is essential for the Russian legislation to develop criteria for evaluating experts’ opinions, research methods and scientific validity of the obtained results as well as the to formulate the appropriate norms.
About the Authors
P. Giverts
Israel National Police H.Q.
Israel
Israel
Giverts Pavel Vatal’evich – Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Firearms Examiner, Division of Identification and Forensic Science, Distinguished Member of Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners (AFTE), Associated Member of Firearms/ GSR working group of European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI)
Jerusalem 91906
A. Griber
Israel National Police H.Q.
Israel
Israel
Griber Alexandra – Member of the Staff of Ballistic Laboratory, Division of Identification and Forensic Science
Jerusalem 91906
A. V. Kokin
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; Kikot Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kokin Andrey Vasil’evich – Doctor of Law, Chief Forensic Examiner at the Laboratory of Toolmarks and Ballistics Examinations; Professor of Department Weapons and Toolmarks Examinations at Educational and Scientific Forensic Complex
Moscow 109028
Moscow 117437
References
1. Belkin R.S., Vinberg A.I., Dorokhov V.Ya., Karneeva L.M., et al. The Theory of Evidence in the Soviet Criminal Process. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1973. 736 p. (In Russ.).
2. Avetisyan V.R. Compilation of Expert Practice of Forensic Ballistic Examinations in the System of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation When Solving the Task of Identifying Firearms with a Rifled Barrel by Traces on a Fired Cartridge Case. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2008. No. 2 (10). P. 80–92. (In Russ.).
3. Gorbachev I.V. Compilation of Expert Practice of Forensic Ballistic Examinations in the System of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation when Answering the Question of the Technical Condition of Firearms. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2008. No. 2 (10). P. 93–104. (In Russ.).
4. Zaitseva E.A. The Concept of the Development of the Institute of Forensic Examination in the Conditions of Adversarial Criminal Proceedings. Moscow: Yurlitinform, 2010. 437 р. (In Russ.).
5. Kostenko R.V., Nemira S.V. Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion in the Criminal Proceedings. Moscow: Yurlitinform, 2018. 152 p. (In Russ.).
6. Rossinskaya E.R. Forensic Examination in Civil, Arbitration, Administrative and Criminal Proceedings. Moscow: Norma, 2018. 576 p. (In Russ.).
7. Weiss K.J., Watson C., Xuan Y. Frye’s Backstory: A Tale of Murder, a Retracted Confession, and Scientific Hubris. The Jornal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2014. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 226–233.
8. Lepore J. On Evidence: Proving Frye as a Matter of Law, Science, and History. The Yale Law Journal. 2015. Vol. 124. No. 4. P. 1092–1158.
9. Dixon P.H. Evidence-Admissibility of Evidence – Frye Standard of General Acceptance for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Rejected in Favor of Balancing Test. Cornell Law Review. 1979. Vol. 64. No. 5. P. 875–885.
10. Moenssens A.A. Admissibility of Scientific Evidence – An Alternative to the Frye Rule. William & Mary Law Review. 1984. Vol. 25. No. 4. P. 545–575.
11. Bernstein D.E. Frye, Frye, Again: The Past, Present, and Future of the General Acceptance Test. Jurimetrics. 2001. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 385– 407.
12. Giannelli P.C. The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a HalfCentury Later. Columbia Law Review. 1980. Vol. 80. No. 6. P. 1197–1250.
13. Stolfi A. Why Illinois Should Abandon Frye’s General Acceptance Standard for the Admission of Novel Scientific Evidence. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2003. Vol. 78. No. 2. P. 861–904.
14. Butters J.T. Forensic Engineering Preparation for Daubert/Kumho Challenges. AFTE Journal. 2006. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 3–9.
15. Rosenberry J.L. Firearm/Toolmark Examination and the Daubert Criteria. AFTE Journal. 2003. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 38–48.
16. Grzybowski R., Murdock J. Firearm and Toolmark Identification – Meeting the Daubert Challenge. AFTE Journal. 1998. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 3–14.
17. Grzybowski R., et al. Firearm/Toolmark Identification: Passing the Reliability Test under Federal and State Evidentiary Standards. AFTE Journal. 2003. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 209–221.
18. Denio D.J. The History of the AFTE Journal, the Peer Review Process, and Daubert Issues. AFTE Journal. 2002. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 210–214.
19. Lesciotto K.M. The Impact of Daubert on the Admissibility of Forensic Anthropology Expert Testimony. Jounal of Forensic Sciences. 2015. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12740
20. Page M., Taylor J., Blenkin M. Forensic Identification Science Evidence Since Daubert: Part I-A Quantitative Analysis of the Exclusion of Forensic Identification Science Evidence. Jounal of Forensic Sciences. 2011. Vol. 56. No. 5. P. 1180–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01777.x
21. Page M., Taylor J., Blenkin M. Forensic Identification Science Evidence Since Daubert: Part II-Judicial Reasoning in Decisions to Exclude Forensic Identification Evidence on Grounds of Reliability. Jounal of Forensic Sciences. 2011. Vol. 56. No. 4. P. 913–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01776.x
22. Bernstein D.E., Jackson J.D. The Daubert Trilogy in the States. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper. 2004. No. 4–6. https://ssrn.com/abstract=498786
23. Thompson S.G., Cásarez N.B. Solving Daubert’s Dilemma for the Forensic Sciences Through Blind Testing. Housting Law Review. 2020. Vol. 57. No. 3. P. 617–670.
24. Melnick R.L. A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation. American Journal of Public Health. 2005. Vol. 95. No. S1. P. S30–S34. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250
25. Solomon S.M., Hackett E.J. Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1996. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100201
26. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community N.R.C. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C., 2009. 350 p.
Review
For citations:
Giverts P., Griber A., Kokin A.V. On the Criteria for Evaluating an Expert's Opinion and Forensic Methods by Participants in the Legal Proceedings. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2022;17(1):27-37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2022-1-27-37
Views:
1634
Email this article 