Towards the Principled Reception of Expert Evidence of Witness Credibility in Criminal Trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Witness Credibility

8. Opinion evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Scientific Expertise ◽  
Civil Trials

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter explores an area of evidence law dominated by expert witness evidence and the extent to which flawed testimony leads to miscarriages of justice. Expert evidence is now commonplace in criminal and civil trials, and the courts and Parliament have developed procedures to ensure that it is of high quality. These are an eclectic mix of common law and statute and their development reflects the importance of scientific expertise. It is necessary to be familiar with the differences between expert and non-expert opinion evidence and on when and in what circumstances both types are admissible and questions that can be asked of the expert whilst giving evidence. The approach depends on whether the question relates to civil or criminal trials

scholarly journals Experts and pretenders: Examining possible responses to misconduct by experts in criminal trials in England and Wales

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine Freer
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Disciplinary Procedures

Much academic literature explores the reliability of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. However, almost no attention has been paid to misconduct by experts giving evidence in criminal cases. Whilst rare, its serious impact on the administration of justice and public trust in it means that this area requires analysis. This article explores possible responses to expert witness misconduct occurring in the context of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, noting particularly the differences in responses available, depending firstly upon whether the expert is a registered professional, and secondly whether the expert has stepped outside of their expertise; did not have relevant expertise at all, or was dishonest. Professional disciplinary procedures focus on ‘fitness to practise’, and it is argued that this is sufficient where a registered professional has overstepped their expertise, but has not displayed mala fides. On the contrary, where someone gives evidence purporting to have expertise that they do not, or lies about their conduct as an expert in the case, criminal sanctions are available, appropriate, and should be used. These include contempt of court; perverting the course of justice; fraud by false representation, and perjury.

scholarly journals Pre-recorded expert evidence in intimate partner violence cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Abusive Relationships ◽  
General Nature ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Improve Access

This article makes a case for pre-recorded, modularized expert evidence as a way to improve access to justice in some intimate partner violence (IPV) cases. Knowledge about the effects and dynamics of IPV regularly plays an important role in criminal trials. This knowledge is often beyond the ken of the factfinder, and thus can provide important context for the case facts. It may also assist in disabusing misconceptions surrounding IPV. Despite the potential value of this knowledge, several rules of evidence and the general nature of the Anglo-American trial process make it difficult to tender such evidence. For instance, trials prefer live testimony of expert witnesses over other means of conveying exogenous knowledge. These limitations place impecunious parties in regional areas at a disadvantage because they may struggle to find qualified experts. As a result, cross-examined pre-recorded modules about IPV (e.g., factors that prevent individuals from leaving abusive relationships, IPV as coercive control) may be helpful in some cases.

scholarly journals Abbey Road: The (Ongoing) Journey to Reliable Expert Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Police Officers ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Specialized Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Factual Question ◽  
Training And Research ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Canadian courts draw a tenuous distinction between expert scientific evidence and what they characterize as specialized knowledge gained through the expert witness’s experience, training, and research. This characterization is based on unclear criteria and has significant consequences. Notably, specialized knowledge regularly receives considerably less scrutiny than that which is characterized as science, while still often serving as powerful inculpatory evidence in criminal trials. Moreover, specialized knowledge is often provided by figures that carry an air of authority, like police officers and scientists. This article focuses on the leading opinion on specialized knowledge, the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in R v Abbey. An analysis of Abbey’s application to three fields of contested specialized knowledge (including the evidence the Abbey Court admitted, but fresh evidence revealed as fundamentally unreliable) provides two general insights. First, while Abbey could be interpreted as providing for a flexible and probing analysis of all expert evidence, courts have often relied on it to justify giving almost no scrutiny to specialized knowledge. Second, this review of the post-Abbey jurisprudence suggests that scrutiny focused on the transparency of the expert’s data and analysis, and whether that analysis can reliably be applied to the relevant factual question, may provide a valuable way to evaluate expertise.

Forensic Face Matching

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-192
Author(s):  
Andrew Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Image Comparison ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Face Matching ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Fundamental Requirement

This chapter considers the use of forensic face matching as evidence in criminal trials. It provides an account of the evidential rules and principles that govern the admissibility of this form of evidence in common law jurisdictions—namely, the requirement of relevance, the prohibition on evidence of opinion, and the exception to that prohibition for those who possess expertise. It explains that notwithstanding differences in approach to the reception of expert evidence across jurisdictions, and despite persistent and unresolved concerns about its reliability, evidence of image-to-image comparison will be admitted. In contrast, because person-to-image comparison is a task that can usually be undertaken in the courtroom by the fact-finder, the evidence of witnesses who have engaged in this kind of comparison will usually be excluded on the grounds that it does not satisfy the fundamental requirement of relevance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document