Model forensic science

Edmond, Gary, Found, Bryan, Martire, Kristy, Ballantyne, Kaye, Hamer, David, Searston, Rachel, Thompson, Matthew, Cunliffe, Emma, Kemp, Richard, San Roque, Mehera, Tangen, Jason, Dioso-Villa, Rachel, Ligertwood, Andrew, Hibbert, David, White, David, Ribeiro, Gianni, Porter, Glenn, Towler, Alice and Roberts, Andrew (2016) Model forensic science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48 5: 496-537. doi:10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969

Author Edmond, Gary
Found, Bryan
Martire, Kristy
Ballantyne, Kaye
Hamer, David
Searston, Rachel
Thompson, Matthew
Cunliffe, Emma
Kemp, Richard
San Roque, Mehera
Tangen, Jason
Dioso-Villa, Rachel
Ligertwood, Andrew
Hibbert, David
White, David
Ribeiro, Gianni
Porter, Glenn
Towler, Alice
Roberts, Andrew
Title Model forensic science
Journal name Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1834-562X
Publication date 2016-04-05
Year available 2016
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 48
Issue 5
Start page 496
End page 537
Total pages 42
Place of publication Abingdon, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Collection year 2017
Language eng
Formatted 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.
Keyword Disclosure
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
School of Psychology Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 00:30:18 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)