How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases

Law, Probability and Risk

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 317-329

  Sjerps, Marjan J ^a,b   Berger, Charles E H ^c  

^a NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Evidence; Forensic reporting; Forensic science; Inference; Transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871305254     PISSN: 14708396     EISSN: 1470840X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgs017     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. AFSP (Association of Forensic Science Providers). Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science & Justice, 49, 161-164.2009
2. AITKEN, CGG,ROBERTS, P & JACKSON, G. (2010). Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses. The Royal Statistical Society, London.
3. AITKEN, CGG & GAMMERMAN, AJ. (1989). Probabilistic reasoning in evidential assessment. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 29, 303-316.
4. AITKEN, CGG TARONI, F. (2004). Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, 2nd ed.Wiley, Chichester.
5. BERGER, CEH, BUCKLETON, JS, CHAMPOD, C, EVETT, IW JACKSON, G. (2011). Evidence evaluation: a response to the Appeal Court judgment in R v T. Science & Justice, 51, 43-49.
6. COLE, SA. (2008). Comment on 'Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert'. Law, Probability and Risk, 7, 119-126.
7. COOK, R, EVETT, IW, JACKSON, G, JONES, PJ LAMBERT, JA. (1998). A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice, 38, 151-156.
8. COWELL, RG,LAURITZEN, SL MORTERA, J. (2011). Probabilistic expert systems for handling artefacts in complex DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 202-209.
9. CURRAN, JM. (2009). Statistics in forensic science. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 1, 141-156.
10. EVETT, I & WEIR, BS. (1998). Interpreting DNA evidence: statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sinauer Associates.
11. EVETT, IW. (1998). Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Science& Justice, 38, 198-202.
12. EVETT, IW, GILL, PD, JACKSON, G, WHITAKER, J & CHAMPOD, C. (2002). Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. Journal of Forensic Science, 47, 520-30.
13. FENTON, NE NEIL,M. (2006). Comment: Expert Elicitation for Reliable System Design. Statistical Science, 21, 451-453.
14. FENTON, NE & NEIL, M. (2011). Avoiding Legal Fallacies in Practice Using Bayesian Networks. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 36, 114-151.
15. GILL, P, BRENNER, CH, BUCKLETON, JS, CARRACEDO, A, KRAWCZAK, M, MAYR, WR, MORLING, N, PRINZ, M, SCHNEIDER, PM & WEIR, BS. (2006). DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International, 160, 90-101.
16. GJERTSON, DW, BRENNER, CH, BAUR, MP, CARRACEDO, A, GUIDET, F, LUQUE, JA, LESSIG, R,MAYR, WR, PASCALI, VL, PRINZ,M, SCHNEIDER, PM MORLING,N. (2007). ISFG:Recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 1, 223-231.
17. LINACRE, A,GUSMAO , L,HECHT,W, HELLMANN, AP,MAYR,WR, PARSON,W,PRINZ, M, SCHNEIDER, PM MORLING, N. (2011). ISFG: Recommendations regarding the use of non-human (animal) DNA in forensic genetic investigations. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 501-505.
18. LINDLEY, DV. (1977). Probability and the Law. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D (The Statistician), 26, 203-220.
19. MNOOKIN, JL,COLE, SA,DROR, IE, FISHER, BAJ,HOUCK, MM, INMAN, K,KAYE, DH,KOEHLER, JJ, LANGENBURG, G, RISINGER, DM,RUDIN, N, SIEGEL, J & STONEY, DA. (2011). The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Review, 58, 725-779.
20. NEUFELD, P & SCHECK, B. (2010). Making forensic science more scientific. Nature, 464, 351-351.
21. Position statement. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Science & Justice, 51, 1-2. R v T (2010). Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, EWCA Crim 2439.2011
22. ROBERTSON, B & VIGNAUX, GA. (1995). Interpreting evidence: evaluating forensic science in the Courtroom. Wiley, Chichester UK.
23. SAKS, MJ. (2010). Forensic identification: From a faith-based "Science" to a scientific science. Forensic Science International, 201, 14-17.
24. SAKS, MJ & KOEHLER, JJ. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892-895.
25. SKERRETT, J,NEUMANN, C & MATEOS-GARCIA, I. (2011). A Bayesian approach for interpreting shoemark evidence in forensic casework: Accounting for wear features. Forensic Science International, 210, 26-30.
26. TARONI, F, AITKEN, C, GARBOLINO, P & BIEDERMAN, A. (2006). Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Wiley, Chichester UK.