Hat tip to Robert Richards for his alert to the following new issue of the
International Journal of Evidence and Proof
Volume 16 Number 1 2012
ISSN: 1365-7127 eISSN: 1740-5572
ARTICLEThe likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to R v T
Keywords: Bayesian; Bayes; Admissibility; Validity; Reliability
Geoffrey Stewart Morrison DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390
(2012) 16 E & P 1
ABSTRACT: In R v T the Court of Appeal concluded that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except 'where there is a firm statistical base'. The present article argues that the court's opinion is based on misunderstandings of statistics and of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence. The likelihood-ratio framework is a logical framework and not itself dependent on the use of objective measurements, databases and statistical models. The ruling is analysed from the perspective of the new paradigm for forensic-comparison science: the use of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence; a strong preference for the use of objective measurements, databases representative of the relevant population, and statistical models; and empirical testing of the validity and reliability of the forensic-comparison system under conditions reflecting those of the case at trial.
Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1)
Keywords: Law and science; Forensic science; Expertise; Admissibility; Daubert;Reform; Trial safeguards; Proof; Opinion; Judging
Gary Edmond DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.391
(2012) 16 E & P 30
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.
Due process and the admission of expert evidence on recovered memory in historic child sexual abuse cases: lessons from America
Keywords: Expert evidence; Recovered memory; Due process; Historic child sexual abuse prosecutions; the United States; Ireland; England and Wales; Law Commission
Sinead Ring DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.392
(2012) 16 E & P 66
ABSTRACT: This article reviews the decisions of the US state courts on the admissibility of expert testimony on recovered memory in historic child sexual abuse prosecutions. Unlike their English and Irish counterparts, most US courts scrutinise the reliability of expert evidence on recovered memory. In examining the US decisions the article explores the challenges posed to the criminal process by the contested scientific status of recovered memory theory. It sets out due process arguments why expert evidence on the topic should not be admitted in a criminal trial.
CASE NOTEExpert evidence on the reliability of eyewitness identification-some observations on the justifications for exclusion: Gage v HM Advocate
Keywords: Expert evidence; Eyewitness identification; Admissibility; Common knowledge; Probative value
Andrew Roberts 93
CASE COMMENTARIESCase Commentaries
Rosemary Pattenden 106
Rosemary Pattenden 128
The dynamic evidence page
Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan
It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law.
See also this post and this post.