Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts

Reid, Carmen A.; Howes, LM

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.09.007

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…made" Y And, of course, the notorious term " match" and phrase " consistent with" appeared frequently. This is consistent with Reid and Howes [17], which found high use of the term " match" in testimony about forensic biology in Tasmania.…”

Section: Adherence To Standardssupporting

confidence: 89%

Probabilistic reporting in criminal cases in the United States: A baseline study

Cole

Barno

2020

Science & Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over a decade ago, the National Research Council (NRC) Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, highlighted the lack of standards with regard to reporting of evidence in forensic science: [M]any terms are used by forensic examiners in reports and in court testimony to describe findings, conclusions, and the degrees of association between evidentiary material (e.g., hairs, fingerprints, fibers) and particular people or objects. Such terms include but are not limited to " match," " consistent with," " identical," " similar in all respects tested," and " cannot be excluded as the source of."…Yet the forensic science disciplines have not reached agreement or consensus on the precise meaning of any of these terms. Although some disciplines have developed vocabulary and scales to be used in reporting results, they have not become standard practice [1]. In subsequent years, working groups in a number of forensic disciplines promulgated guidelines in an effort to standardized reporting among practitioners [2-7]. As the above quotatione illustrates, many forensic disciplines historically reported in what can reasonably be characterized as a " non-statistical" manner, using verbal formulations that were categorical rather than continuous, reflecting certainty rather than uncertainty (e.g., [8,9]). The standards issued following the NRC report often continued to promote these non-statistical forms of forensic evidence reporting, albeit it in a more systematized manner. At the same time, recent years have seen increasing efforts to promote the application of statistics to forensic evidence in the United States (e.g., [8,9]). Within this burgeoning field of forensic statistics, a vigorous scholarly debate has developed over how forensic scientists should report results. Although all forensic statisticians urge that results should be reported in a statistically defensible manner, they differ regarding the precise tools and frameworks for such reporting. For example, some forensic statisticians have promoted the likelihood ratio framework as an all-encompassing solution to forensic reporting, applicable to all, or nearly all, situations (e.g., [10,11]). Yet, even among those who advocate for likelihood ratios, debates remain over myriad technical issues in formulating those ratios. Some forensic statisticians argue that, in order to adequately address underlying model assumptions and sampling uncertainty, forensic reports should be expressed in terms of a range of plausible likelihood ratios rather than a single likelihood ratio (e.g., [8,9]). Likewise, there have been strong debates over what we might call " reporting standards": documents that instruct forensic practitioners how they should report results. But what if practitioners do not actually report in the way that disciplinary standards say they should? In contrast to the robust scholarship on how forensic scientists should report, less attention has been paid to how they do report. Accordingly, our study focuses on the following key research questio...

show abstract

Section: Adherence To Standardssupporting

confidence: 89%

Probabilistic reporting in criminal cases in the United States: A baseline study

Cole

Barno

2020

Science & Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reid & Howes [ 94 ] explored the presentation of forensic reports and corresponding testimony in major crime against the person. Expert reports were found brief and omitted much of the detail recommended to allow the reader a greater understanding of the evidence.…”

Section: Evidence Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpol review of fibres and textiles 2019-2022

Lepot

Vanhouche

Driessche

et al. 2023

Forensic Science International: Synergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Given the reliance placed upon forensic science evidence as part of many criminal investigations (Reedy, 2020), it is imperative that any communicated findings are reliable (Reid & Howes, 2020). Achieving this often requires the deployment of techniques and procedures which facilitate the analysis and interpretation of whichever data type is, or may be the assumed target of an inquiry, where these processes must be subject to robust evaluation (Casey, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forming an investigative opinion in digital forensics

Horsman

2022

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we now see digital evidence play a role in many investigative scenarios, it is imperative that those seeking to rely upon it as part of criminal justice processes can do so, absent any concern regarding its validity. Interpreting the meaning of digital data and its potential value to a criminal inquiry as part of a digital forensic examination is a complex and multifaceted process requiring the practitioner to possess the relevant knowledge, experience, and insight needed to determine the case‐significance of a given data trace accurately. Erroneously interpreted data that is communicated to a client and subsequently relied upon can have far‐reaching consequences for all those involved in the investigative process. This work discusses the process of forming investigative opinions in digital forensic science examinations, what this means in practice, and the ways in which it can be achieved. Focus will be given to the process of forming an investigative opinion when underpinned through the reconstruction and testing of a suspect system/setup, with a formal three‐stage methodology for doing this outlined. This article is categorized under: Digital and Multimedia Science > Cybercrime Investigation

show abstract

Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Probabilistic reporting in criminal cases in the United States: A baseline study

Probabilistic reporting in criminal cases in the United States: A baseline study

Interpol review of fibres and textiles 2019-2022

Forming an investigative opinion in digital forensics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About