Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/112848
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Model forensic science
Author: Edmond, G.
Found, B.
Martire, K.
Ballantyne, K.
Hamer, D.
Searston, R.
Thompson, M.
Cunliffe, E.
Kemp, R.
San Roque, M.
Tangen, J.
Dioso-Villa, R.
Ligertwood, A.
Hibbert, D.
White, D.
Ribeiro, G.
Porter, G.
Towler, A.
Roberts, A.
Citation: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2016; 48(5):496-537
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Issue Date: 2016
ISSN: 0045-0618
1834-562X
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Gary Edmond, Bryan Found, Kristy Martire, Kaye Ballantyne, David Hamer, Rachel Searston, Matthew Thompson, Emma Cunliffe, Richard Kemp, Mehera San Roque, Jason Tangen, Rachel Dioso-Villa, Andrew Ligertwood, David Hibbert, David White, Gianni Ribeiro, Glenn Porter, Alice Towler and Andrew Roberts
Abstract: This article provides an explanation of the duties and responsibilities owed by forensic practitioners (and other expert witnesses) when preparing for and presenting evidence in criminal proceedings. It is written in the shadow of reports by the National Academy of Sciences (US), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry and a recent publication entitled ‘How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for Lawyers’. The article examines potential responses to questions focused on the need for scientific research, validation, uncertainties, limitations and error, contextual bias and the way expert opinions are expressed in reports and oral testimony. Responses and the discussion is developed around thematics such as disclosure, transparency, epistemic modesty and impartiality derived from modern admissibility and procedure rules, codes of conduct, ethical and professional responsibilities and employment contracts. The article explains why forensic practitioners must respond to the rules and expectations of adversarial legal institutions. Simultaneously, in line with accusatorial principles, it suggests that forensic practitioners employed by the state ought to conduct themselves as model forensic scientists.
Keywords: Expert; evidence; report; validation; disclosure; impartial; ethics; duties; professionalism
Rights: © 2016 Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT0992041
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP120100063
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE140100183
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Psychology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.