Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T

Science and Justice

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 43-49

  Berger, Charles E H ^a   Buckleton, John ^b   Champod, Christophe ^c   Evett, Ian W ^d   Jackson, Graham ^e  

^a NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^d FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian inference; Footwear; Forensic Science; Interpretation; Likelihood ratio

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; FORENSIC SCIENCE; LEGAL EVIDENCE;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC SCIENCES; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PROBABILITY; SHOES;

EID: 79956266797     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. R v T Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 2010, EWCA Crim 2439.
2. Evaluative Expressing Opinions: a position statement. Science & Justice 2011, 51:1-2.
3. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Interpreting Evidence - Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom 1995, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Chichester.
4. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester. 2nd ed.
5. C. Aitken, P. Roberts, G. Jackson, Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses. London: The Royal Statistical Society, in press. http://www.rss.org.uk/statsandlaw.
6. M. Redmayne, P. Roberts, C. G. G. Aitken, G. Jackson, Forensic Science Evidence in Question. Criminal Law Review (2011) 347-356.
7. B. Robertson, G. A. Vignaux, C. E. H. Berger, Extending the Confusion About Bayes, Modern Law Review, in press.
8. Jackson G., Jones S., Booth G., Champod C., Evett I.W. The nature of forensic science opinion - a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. Science & Justice 2006, 46:33-44.
9. Association of Forensic Science Providers Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science & Justice 2009, 49:161-164.
10. Finkelstein M.O., Fairley W.B. A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harvard Law Review 1970, 83:489-517.
11. Taroni F., Champod C., Margot P. Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science. Jurimetrics Journal 1998, 38:183-200.
12. Bender R., Nack A., Treuer W.-D. Tatsachenfeststellung Vor Gericht - glaubwürdigkeits- Und Beweislehre Vernehmungslehre 2007, Verlag C.H. Beck, München. 3rd ed.
13. Broun K.S., Mosteller R.P., Dix G.E., Roberts E.F., I.E.J, Strong J.W., Kaye D.H., Swift E. Mccormick on Evidence 2006, Thompson/West Publishing Co., Eagan, MN.
14. Lindley D.V. Understanding Uncertainty 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken.
15. Fienberg S.E. When did Bayesian inference become "Bayesian"?. Bayesian Analysis 2006, 1:1-40.
16. Evett I.W., Foreman L.A., Jackson G., Lambert J.A. DNA profiling: a discussion of issues relating to the reporting of very small match probabilities. Criminal Law Review May 2000, 341-355.
17. Buckleton J.S. Population genetic models. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation Methods and Interpretation 2004, 65-122. CRC Press, Boca Raton. S.J. Walsh, C.M. Triggs, J.S. Buckleton (Eds.).
18. Taroni F., Aitken C.G.G., Garbolino P. De Finetti's subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists. Science & Justice 2001, 41:145-150.
19. Peter Weller R.v UK Court of Appeal 2010, EWCA Crim 1085.
20. Dean Atkins R.v, Michael Atkins Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 2009, EWCA Crim 1876.
21. R v Abadom, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, [1983] 1 Wlr 126, [1983] 1 All Er 364.
22. Denis John Adams R.v Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 1996, EWCA Crim 222.
23. Norman Edward Gilfoyle R.v Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 2000, EWCA Crim 81.
24. Steven Puaca R.v Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 2005, EWCA Crim 3001.
25. Alan James Doheny R.v, Gary Adams R.v Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 1996, EWCA Crim 728.
26. Kaye D.H., Bernstein D.E., Mnookin J.L. The New Wigmore, a Treatise on Evidence: Expert Evidence 2011, Aspen Publishers Inc., New York. 2nd ed.
27. Lyon T.D., Koehler J.J. The relevance ratio: evaluating the probative value of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Cornell Law Review 1996, 82:43-78.
28. Kaufman F. Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin 1998, Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, Toronto.
29. National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
30. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A., McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science & Justice 2000, 40:233-239.
31. Evett I.W. The theory of interpreting scientific transfer evidence. Forensic Science Progress 1990, 4:141-179.
32. State of Western Australia v Dair 2006, WADC 157.
33. Thompson W.C. Motion to Exclude DNA Evidence in United States V Cuff, 37F.Supp.2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). BNA Criminal Practice Guide January 12, 2000, 14-18.
34. Thompson W.C., Schumann E.L. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defence attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior 1987, 11:167-187.
35. Balding D.J., Donnelly P. The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence. Criminal Law Review 1994, 711-721.
36. R v Deen, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, The Times, January 10th.
37. ENFSI Expert Working Group Marks Conclusion Scale Committee Conclusion scale for shoeprint and toolmarks examination. Journal of Forensic Identification 2006, 56:255-280.
38. Biedermann A., Taroni F., Garbolino P. Equal prior probabilities: can one do any better?. Forensic Science International 2007, 172:85-93.
39. Biedermann A., Taroni F., Aitken C.G.G. Letter to the editor - re: conclusion scale for shoeprint and toolmarks examinations. J. For. Ident. 2006, 56(2):685-693. (with response).
40. Sally Clark R.v Court of Appeal - Criminal Division 2003, EWCA Crim 1020.