This year marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals, inc., which fundamentally reshaped how judges evaluate scientific and expert evidence.1 this volume of judicature, with three wonderful contributions by Jay Koehler, pate skene, and an expert team led by William Thompson, comes at an ideal time to reconsider how successful the modern judicial approach to expert evidence has been. That approach is now reflected in federal rule of evidence 702, revised in 2000 to comport with the Daubert ruling, and in state judicial rulings and state rules of evidence, which have followed suit in most states.
Introduction: Forensics Fail?
Journal: Judicature
Published: 2018
Primary Author: Brandon Garrett
Type: Publication
Research Area: Implementation and Practice
Related Resources
Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials
We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of…
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that…
What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency
Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae…
Shifting decision thresholds can undermine the probative value and legal utility of forensic pattern-matching evidence
Forensic pattern analysis requires examiners to compare the patterns of items such as fingerprints or tool marks to assess whether they have a common source. This article uses signal detection…