From the laboratory to the witness stand: research trends and method validation in forensic anthropology

Bethard, Jonathan D.; DiGangi, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1002/9781119469957.ch3

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Expertise is routinely questioned in a court of law. Forensic anthropologists are rarely called upon to testify in court, and case outcomes have been addressed elsewhere [21, 39, 40]. As their services become better utilized in death investigations, their credentials, experience, and testimony will come under greater scrutiny by the courts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Carter

Newman

Seidemann

et al. 2022

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human skeletal remains (HSR) are routinely excavated from archeological contexts and analyzed by experts in human osteology. Contrarily, HSR in medicolegal contexts are usually recovered by law enforcement officers and examined by pathologists with limited osteological training. To examine legal requirements for expertise, we reviewed laws in the United States regarding the recovery and analysis of HSR from archeological sites, unmarked graves, and medicolegal contexts. Of the 50 states, 19 (38%) have laws stating that an anthropologist with osteological training should be involved in the recovery or analysis of HSR from an archeological context. Fifteen of those 16 states have laws requiring a minimum level of education to be a qualified skeletal analyst. In contrast, only one state, Texas, requires an anthropologist who handles forensic cases to have a doctoral degree. Including Texas, only eight states (16%) have laws that encourage but do not mandate consultation with a forensic anthropologist for medicolegal skeletal cases. Louisiana and Washington have state‐funded laboratories, expert forensic anthropologists, and effective protocols for handling forensic cases. Due process and human rights concerns at stake in criminal cases require that those recovering and analyzing modern HSR have an equal or higher level of expertise than those working with archeological remains. Yet, legislators assume that law enforcement and pathologists are adequately trained. Because court standards demand expert testimony based on accepted methodologies and standard levels of competency, forensic anthropologists have a professional responsibility to engage with lawmakers to draft legislation to ensure proper handling of all skeletal cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…comes have been addressed elsewhere[21,39,40]. As their services become better utilized in death investigations, their credentials, experience, and testimony will come under greater scrutiny by the courts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Carter

Newman

Seidemann

et al. 2022

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A secondary review was conducted to confirm relevance to forensic anthropology through either a full‐text (for articles published prior to 1980 that lacked a published abstract) or abstract‐only (for articles published after 1980) review. Each article's general topic within forensic anthropology was recorded based on the coding strategy of Bethard and DiGangi [23]. Articles focused on forensic odontology or dental anthropology were excluded, as were other topics deemed to be outside of the traditional bounds of forensic anthropology (e.g., forensic entomology, forensic botany, forensic hair analysis).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The over‐citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology

Lesciotto,

Christensen

2023

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.

show abstract

“…From a legal standpoint, methods used to analyze forensic evidence, which includes the remains of deceased individuals, must be able to withstand judicial scrutiny when assessed against the Daubert guidelines; rules stemming from a 1993 Supreme Court case clarifying how forensic evidence is admitted in court (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993). While it is unusual for forensic anthropologists to testify about how they ascertained the biological profile for a given set of skeletal remains (Bethard & DiGangi, 2019), of which ancestry is a part, it is nevertheless essential to continually ensure our methods are rigorous and up to date and that we understand the biocultural factors that affect them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secular change in morphological cranial and mandibular trait frequencies in European Americans born 1824–1987

Kilroy

Tallman

DiGangi

2020

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Secular change in cranial and postcranial morphometrics and morphological traits has been documented in several studies. However, to date, few studies have addressed temporal changes occurring in the expression of cranial morphological traits commonly used in ancestry estimation. This study examines secular change in the expression of 23 cranial and mandibular morphological traits; accounting for ageat-death, sex, and year-of-birth. Materials & Methods: Data were collected on 23 morphological cranial and mandibular traits for European American individuals (19-97 years of age) from the Hamann-Todd Skeletal Collection (n = 518) and the William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection (n = 602). Individuals were divided into six birth-year cohorts: 1824-1849 (Cohort 1),

show abstract

From the laboratory to the witness stand: research trends and method validation in forensic anthropology

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

The over‐citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology

Secular change in morphological cranial and mandibular trait frequencies in European Americans born 1824–1987

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About