Edmond on The Law Commission and Expert Evidence

Professor Dr. Gary Edmond of the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law has published Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1), International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 16(1), 30-65 (2012). Here is the abstract:

This article offers a critical appraisal of the Law Commission‘s Report, Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (2011), and related proposals for reform. Drawing upon interdisciplinary research and empirical studies from other common law jurisdictions it suggests that the introduction of a reliability-based admissibility standard for expert opinion evidence, even in conjunction with provision for recourse to court-appointed experts, is unlikely to generate the kinds of changes required to improve the quality of incriminating forensic science and medicine evidence or align criminal justice practice with espoused goals and principles.

Kirby on Forensic Evidence

The Honorable Michael Kirby of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Arbitration Panel has published Forensic Evidence: Instrument of Truth or Potential for Miscarriage?, Journal of Law, Information and Science, 20(1), 1-22 (2009-2010). Here is the abstract:

Forensic evidence is not new in Australian courts. Fingerprint and handwriting analysis and technological expertise came to occupy an increasing role in court cases during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. By reference to the forensic evidence gathered by police in the Graham Thorne murder trial, leading to the conviction of Stephen Bradley, the author demonstrates the growing use of traditional forensic evidence. With the last decades of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, new problems began to emerge, notably in the use of DNA evidence ‘to convict the guilty and clear the innocent’. By reference to decisions of the High Court of Australia, the author illustrates the Court’s response to forensic evidence. Other cases are cited, including in State courts, to illustrate that errors can occur from careless procedures or excessive confidence in scientific reports. The article concludes with a number of lessons which are suggested by a review of recent Australian cases. Courts must be vigilant against the risk of evidentiary as well as scientific error. They must insist on rigorous analysis of proved materials and adherence to sound and transparent regulatory regimes.

Strutin: Forensic Evidence and the CSI Effect: Selected Resources

Ken Strutin, JD, MLS, of the New York State Defenders Association has published a bibliography of recent scholarly studies of the so-called “CSI Effect” — i.e., that watching television programs similar CSI: Crime Scene Investigation “raises jurors’ expectation[s] about scientific evidence and leads jurors to acquit guilty defendants due to [a] lack of scientific evidence” (Shelton et al. 2009) — entitled Forensic Evidence and the CSI Effect, LLRX.com, May 9, 2010. For some reason, authors’ names are omitted from the bibliography, so extra effort is required to evaluate the works described. Here is a summary:

This is a collection of select legal scholarship and media studies that illuminates the extent of the ["CSI Effect"] and whether it needs to be addressed and how. It should be noted that there is a large body of news articles, short-form scholarship, books and other media concerning this topic that is not covered in this survey.

Call for Papers: ICDF2C 2010: International ICST Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime

A call for papers and a call for presentations — both having submission deadline of 1 June 2010 — have been issued for ICDF2C 2010: The 2nd International ICST Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime, to be held 4-6 October 2010, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Papers are invited on the following topics:

• “Financial Crimes (Money Laundering, Fraud, Identity Theft)
• Forensic Accounting (Accounting Fraud, Continuous Assurance, etc.)
• Digital Forensics Training & Education
• Digital Forensics Process and Procedures
• Digital Forensics & Law (e-Discovery & Litigation Support, Incident Response, Evidence Handling)
• Cyber Crime Investigations
• Cyber Security & Information Warfare
• Computer/Handheld Device & Multimedia Forensics (Tools / Techniques)
• Forensics Standardization, Accreditation
• Cyber Criminal Psychology and Profiling
• Software piracy investigation
• Cyber culture and cyber terrorism”

Presentations are invited on the following topics:

• “Computer Forensics
• Electronic Money Laundering
• Forensic Accounting
• Watermarking & Intellectual Property Theft
• Incident Response & Evidence Handling
• Network Data Analysis
• Data Analytics, Mining & Visualization
• Identity Theft & Online Fraud
• Mobile Device Forensics
• Digital Forensics and the Law
• Data Log Analysis
• Forensics Training & Education
• Natural Language Processing
• Cyber Crime Investigations
• Continuous Assurance
• Internet Crimes Against Children
• Data Recovery & Business Continuity
• Standardization & Accreditation
• Multimedia Forensics
• Digital Signatures and Certificate”

For more information, please see the call for papers and the call for presentations.

Strutin: Strengthening Forensic Science: The Next Wave of Scholarship

Ken Strutin, JD, MLS, of the New York State Defenders Association has published a bibliography of recent scholarly works and conferences on the reform of forensic science in the United States, entitled Strengthening Forensic Science: The Next Wave of Scholarship, LLRX.com, Nov. 23, 2009. For some reason, authors’ names are omitted from the bibliography, so extra effort is required to evaluate the works described. Here is the abstract:

“The National Academy of Sciences report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward [NAS Report], is the most important, recent contribution to the ongoing reevaluation of forensic evidence. Since the release of the prepublication version in February 2009, its findings and conclusions have been steadily sinking into the collective consciousness of the legal and scientific communities.

“This article focuses on threads of scholarly literature citing and commenting on the NAS Report; and highlights discussions where experts and practitioners rethink the merits of a wide range of forensic issues.2 And on the horizon is the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which will have its own impact on legal thinking about science in the courtroom.”

Konheim-Kalkstein et al. on Enabling Laypersons to Interpret DNA Forensic Evidence

Yasmine L. Konheim-Kalkstein, Mark A. Stellmack, and Barb Strnad have published Communicating the “Bottom Line” Probability Facilitates Decisions That Rely on Bayesian Reasoning, 49 Jurimetrics J. 277–283 (2009). The abstract is available here. Here is the abstract:

“Jurors often must have an understanding of Bayesian reasoning to interpret DNA forensic evidence. Previous studies have suggested that representing probabilistic information in natural frequency format may facilitate Bayesian reason­ing. In this study, we presented 31 college students with a Bayesian problem involving DNA forensic evidence. Initially, we found that college students had difficulty with the calculation and with rendering an appropriate verdict despite representing the informa­tion in natural frequencies. We found, however, that when the posterior probability (the probability computed through Bayes theorem of a particular DNA profile being cor­rectly identified) was explicitly stated, our subjects were far more likely to render an appropriate verdict. Our research suggests that simplification of probabilistic informa­tion is the key to helping people understand and use risk information appropriately.”