History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The legal reception of forensic identification science varies from one legal system and culture to another. In Anglo-American law, rules and practices for screening expert testimony have developed over more than three centuries. The most aggressive gatekeeping has evolved in the United States - from tests involving the qualifications of the expert, to the evaluation of the expert in the marketplace, to general acceptance of the expertise in its own field (Frye), to the validity of the expertise (Daubert). But even in the United States, the general practice for admission of forensic science expert testimony has long been a liberal one: forensic sciences have been admitted with little evaluation of their claims. Ineffective judicial evaluation is evidenced by widespread admission of what were later found by scientists to be unsound theories and techniques (voiceprints, bullet lead comparison, arson indicators), and by the histories of other forensic identification sciences (handwriting, fingerprints, toolmarks, bitemarks). The past might or might not foretell the future of judicial treatment of the forensic sciences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationEncyclopedia of Forensic Sciences
Subtitle of host publicationSecond Edition
PublisherElsevier Inc.
Pages481-487
Number of pages7
ISBN (Electronic)9780123821652
ISBN (Print)9780123821669
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Law
expert
history
science
testimony
expertise
evaluation
handwriting
legal system
qualification
acceptance

Keywords

  • Admissibility
  • Admission
  • Courts
  • Daubert
  • Frye
  • History
  • Rules of evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Saks, M. (2012). History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science. In Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences: Second Edition (pp. 481-487). Elsevier Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00229-4

History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science. / Saks, Michael.

Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences: Second Edition. Elsevier Inc., 2012. p. 481-487.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Saks, M 2012, History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science. in Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences: Second Edition. Elsevier Inc., pp. 481-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00229-4
Saks M. History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science. In Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences: Second Edition. Elsevier Inc. 2012. p. 481-487 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00229-4
Saks, Michael. / History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences: Second Edition. Elsevier Inc., 2012. pp. 481-487
@inbook{5f7dbac89e57428484b55f4911da024f,
title = "History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science",
abstract = "The legal reception of forensic identification science varies from one legal system and culture to another. In Anglo-American law, rules and practices for screening expert testimony have developed over more than three centuries. The most aggressive gatekeeping has evolved in the United States - from tests involving the qualifications of the expert, to the evaluation of the expert in the marketplace, to general acceptance of the expertise in its own field (Frye), to the validity of the expertise (Daubert). But even in the United States, the general practice for admission of forensic science expert testimony has long been a liberal one: forensic sciences have been admitted with little evaluation of their claims. Ineffective judicial evaluation is evidenced by widespread admission of what were later found by scientists to be unsound theories and techniques (voiceprints, bullet lead comparison, arson indicators), and by the histories of other forensic identification sciences (handwriting, fingerprints, toolmarks, bitemarks). The past might or might not foretell the future of judicial treatment of the forensic sciences.",
keywords = "Admissibility, Admission, Courts, Daubert, Frye, History, Rules of evidence",
author = "Michael Saks",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00229-4",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780123821669",
pages = "481--487",
booktitle = "Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - History of the Law's Reception of Forensic Science

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - The legal reception of forensic identification science varies from one legal system and culture to another. In Anglo-American law, rules and practices for screening expert testimony have developed over more than three centuries. The most aggressive gatekeeping has evolved in the United States - from tests involving the qualifications of the expert, to the evaluation of the expert in the marketplace, to general acceptance of the expertise in its own field (Frye), to the validity of the expertise (Daubert). But even in the United States, the general practice for admission of forensic science expert testimony has long been a liberal one: forensic sciences have been admitted with little evaluation of their claims. Ineffective judicial evaluation is evidenced by widespread admission of what were later found by scientists to be unsound theories and techniques (voiceprints, bullet lead comparison, arson indicators), and by the histories of other forensic identification sciences (handwriting, fingerprints, toolmarks, bitemarks). The past might or might not foretell the future of judicial treatment of the forensic sciences.

AB - The legal reception of forensic identification science varies from one legal system and culture to another. In Anglo-American law, rules and practices for screening expert testimony have developed over more than three centuries. The most aggressive gatekeeping has evolved in the United States - from tests involving the qualifications of the expert, to the evaluation of the expert in the marketplace, to general acceptance of the expertise in its own field (Frye), to the validity of the expertise (Daubert). But even in the United States, the general practice for admission of forensic science expert testimony has long been a liberal one: forensic sciences have been admitted with little evaluation of their claims. Ineffective judicial evaluation is evidenced by widespread admission of what were later found by scientists to be unsound theories and techniques (voiceprints, bullet lead comparison, arson indicators), and by the histories of other forensic identification sciences (handwriting, fingerprints, toolmarks, bitemarks). The past might or might not foretell the future of judicial treatment of the forensic sciences.

KW - Admissibility

KW - Admission

KW - Courts

KW - Daubert

KW - Frye

KW - History

KW - Rules of evidence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043297629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043297629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00229-4

DO - 10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00229-4

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85043297629

SN - 9780123821669

SP - 481

EP - 487

BT - Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences

PB - Elsevier Inc.

ER -