Forensic science expert witnesses should be free to express their opinion as they see fit - Essay Example

Number and Number Forensic Science Expert Witnesses should be Free to Express their Opinions as They See Fit The presentation of identified forensic evidences is a significant part in criminal case trials. As a common knowledge, it is the duty of forensic science experts to locate and gather physical evidences which can be used in taking legal actions against a suspect. As part of presenting legal evidences in criminal court case trials, direct testimonials coming from forensic experts can be considered as valid information provided that the way they express their personal opinions are fit with the physical evidences being presented in the court trials. Each of the forensic experts has their unique way of expressing what they have observed in a criminal case scenario. In most cases, the validity of information coming from forensic experts is highly dependent on their ability to retain every single detail in their memory. Because of the absence of concrete physical evidences, it becomes a point of argument whether or not forensic science experts (as a witness) should be legally allowed to freely express their personal opinions as they see fit. Miscarriage of justice is all about wrongful judgment among the innocent individuals. To provide the readers with a better idea concerning miscarriages of justice, this report will first briefly explain the different types of miscarriages of justice followed by discussing the extent and limitations wherein forensic science experts should be legally allowed to freely express their personal opinions as they see fit. Different Types of Miscarriage of Justice Whether or not the incidence of human error within the court justice system is intentional or unintentional1, miscarriage of justice is considered as a serious social issue that could destroy the ability of the court to promote a fair legal justice system throughout the United Kingdom. To avoid destroying the credibility of UK’s legal system, most of the long list of past and current miscarriage of justice cases are kept unpublished. In case the defendant is not guilty of a crime, Layne explained that miscarriages of justice can occur each time an innocent person is convicted of a crime that was committed by another person2. This can happen in times when the defendant has been unfairly convicted because of failure to receive a fail trial. There are also situations wherein the innocent defendants can also be detained in a prison cell even though the innocent defendant has not been found guilty of a crime3. On the other hand, miscarriages of justice can occur in case the judge let go of a guilty defendant. In case the life of a witness or one of the jurors has been seriously threatened, there is a strong possibility for a guilty defendant to be acquitted in a court trial. Extent and Limitations wherein Forensic Science Experts should be Legally Allowed to Freely Express their Personal Opinions as They See Fit Expert witness is referring to professionals with proper education or expertise in a particular field (i.e. psychiatrist, pharmacologists, neurologists, etc.) who could assist in solving a criminal case4. Their main role is to provide scientific-based evidences or testimony based on facts in the court. Over the past decades, expert witnesses managed to help in solving crimes by presenting scientific-based information that are useful in making the members of the jury decide whether or not the defendant is guilty of a crime. Even though expert witness could help the jury solve criminal cases, there are also some instances wherein the information coming from the expert witnesses could lead to miscarriage of justice5. Because of the increasing number of wrongful conviction in UK, several previous cases strongly suggest the need to develop and implement a new “corrective justice system” throughout the United Kingdom6. This is probably one of the reasons that had triggered the need to determine the extent and limitations wherein the personal opinions coming from forensic science experts should be legally allowed to freely express in public provided that they see it fit. In general, there are a lot of differences between physical evidences based on facts and statements made based on pure hypothesis (opinions). Basically, physical evidences that are based on facts includes ballistic reports7, laboratory tests (i.e. blood test, blood-alcohol levels, breath tests)8, ear-, voice- or fingerprint identification9, facial mapping10, and DNA testing11 among others. With regards to expert opinion, qualified individuals could testify as a witness of a crime. However, each one of them has their own unique way on how they would perceive whatever they hear or saw in a crime scene. Considering that the fact that there is a strong possibility that the memory of the witness expert can have difficulty trying to recall accurate details that took place in a crime scene12, the act of providing evidences based on opinion could sometimes be inaccurate in terms of accurately determining whether the defendant is really guilty of a crime. There are a lot of factors that could affect the inability of a witness to recall historical events. One of possible intervention which could prevent the witness to verbally express the real crime scenario is the use of hypnotherapy13. There will always be a risk wherein the witness may suffer or experience deterioration in their memory. Therefore, experts’ evidences based on opinion should not always be allowed as valid nor reliable information when solving legal cases related to crimes14. In the absence of physical evidences, it would be very difficult to prove whether or not evidences based on opinion should be use as valid information when solving a criminal case. For instance: A forensic science expert who testifies in a crime as a witness stated that “I saw that man killed the lady”. The fact that the expert was the one who has personally seen the crime makes his statement an evidence of opinion but not a fact. Therefore, there will always be a possibility that the forensic science expert saw another man in a crime scene that happened to have similar physical or facial features with the man he was accusing of killing the lady. Even though the physical facts presented in court can use in determining whether a criminal case is either strong or weak, one of the most common problems associated with heavily relying on the personal opinions of forensic experts is that the experts has the capability to fabricate physical evidences such as laboratory reports or the use of digital photographic evidences in order to manipulate the final decisions of the court jury15. The simple act of providing false evidences based on the opinion of the experts could mislead the jury in terms of providing fair justice to all. Although not all forensic science experts can be bribed by the defendants who are guilty of a crime, there will still be cases wherein these experts could have accidentally left out some critical aspects which are necessary in solving a criminal case16. In general, evidences based on expert opinion are highly competent only if the judge considers the witness to have sufficient expertise and knowledge to be qualified in providing scientific-based explanation behind a theory17. In some criminal cases, the presence of tribunal facts may not be enough to make the jury able to draw into a conclusion. For this reason, the jury has the option to consider opinions coming from forensic science experts to be valid information that can be use to allow them to come up with their final decision. For instance: Provided that a person has gained substantial amount of knowledge and expertise in the study of drug abuse cases (i.e. through personal research studies or charitable work on illegal drugs), the judge can choose to consider the witness as an expert who can officially provide opinion with regards to determining the tolerant level of illegal drug users (i.e. in the case of using ecstasy) even though that person do not have background in the study of medicine18. A good example of a criminal case wherein the expert opinion coming from a highly qualified psychiatrist was required is the cases of R v Walker [2003] and R v Strudwick [1993] which involved the issue on mental illness or insanity19. Specifically in the case of R v Walker [2003], psychiatric medical test results were considered as legally accepted evidences to prove that the defendant was suffering from mental illness under a specific psychiatric condition20. Likewise, the case of R v Huckerby [2004] is also a good example wherein the members of the jury accepted experts’ opinion to determine whether or not the accused was really going through the mental health consequences of having post-traumatic stress disorder21. There are also some legal cases wherein experts’ evidences based on opinion cannot be accepted in the court. In line with this, having a poor mental condition caused by the administration of medical drugs such as in the case of R v Coles [1995] and R v Reynolds [1989] was refused to be accepted in the court22. Furthermore, the experts and legal authorities should be clear that having a very low IQ of below 75 is totally different from having psychiatric illnesses. For this reason, the case of R v Masih which involved a man with low intelligence quotient had no excuse for raping his victim23. Having a significantly very low IQ has been a point of contest in the court. In line with this, the Court of Appeal finally has come into conclusion that the use of expert evidence can be accepted for the purpose of assessing the mental health condition of individuals with intelligent quotient of lower than 69 but not in cases wherein the defendants’ mental health condition is within the normal scale24. Since there is a high risk wherein the suspect(s) in a criminal case could abuse the use of mental illness as an excuse from having life-time imprisonment, the members of the jury may consider medical evidences coming from the experts as universally accepted subjective evidence. In the absence of expert opinion with regards to the different issue on mental illnesses, members of the jury may find it very difficult to interpret and evaluate the case because of their lack of knowledge in understanding the medical explanation that triggers temporary or permanent insanity. There will always be the risk wherein the opinion coming from forensic science experts could oppose the physical evidences gathered based on facts. Since the jury could end up relying on experts’ opinion without validating the truth and its reliability, the inability of the jury to balance the tribunal facts with the experts’ opinion could most likely result to miscarriage of justice25. The case on Confidential Enquiry for Still-births and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI) is one of the common topics when it comes to the study of criminology. Specifically in England, legal issues related to CESDI can take place at the ratio of 1 out of 73 million criminal cases26. In the past, there was no clear distinction between head injuries caused by “shaken baby syndrome” and sudden infant death syndrome27. Considering the fact that babies can die out of sudden infant death syndrome; Sir Roy Meadow28 gave a wrong and misleading expert opinion which caused a lot of innocent mothers throughout the United Kingdom to suffer from the physical, social, and emotional consequences associated with becoming a victim of miscarriage of justice29. Also related to CESDI, Professor Berry30 thought that it is impossible to have a high incidence of mothers who can intentionally kill their own babies. Because of the continuously increasing number of cases wherein innocent mothers are legally convicted for killing their own children, Professor Berry started accepting the fact that it is possible for infants to die of sudden infant death syndrome without having any good medical evidences that could explain why infants can die while sleeping31. Not all opinions coming from the experts are reliable in terms of determining the real suspect and giving justice to the victims. In fact, heavily relying on opinions coming from the experts could somehow increase the chance of having miscarriage of justice. A good example of miscarriage of justice is the case of R v Cannings32 wherein Angela Canning was convicted and falsely accused of killing her own two children. Several authors explained that there is no known cause associated with sudden death infant syndrome33. Back in 2002, Angela Canning was accused of having killed her 7-week old son in 1991 and 18-month old son in 1999 because of the fact that the jury heavily relied on the experts’ opinion even when there was no sufficient physical evidences that can prove that Angela was capable of killing her two children34. Another good example wherein an innocent mother was convicted of killing her 11-month old son and 4-month old son was the case of Donna Anthony35. With regards to the issue on sudden infant death syndrome, mothers of new born babies who died of sudden infant death syndrome are most likely to suffer from serious emotional stress. For this reason, it is not proper and unethical on the part of the jury to simply take into consideration the personal opinions of the experts as valid information to easily accuse or be convicted of killing their own children. Because of the increasing public concern with regards to the issue on miscarriage of justice, the Court of Appeal eventually re-opened and cleared the case of Angela on June 2003 for the mere fact that there was no physical evidence gathered to prove that she had intentionally murdered her own two sons36. Similar to the case of Angela, the Court of Appeal also dismissed the case of Donna last April 2005 when she was officially acquitted and freed from the prison cell37. Innocent people are prone to become a victim of social injustice caused by unfair legal system38. To ensure that miscarriage of justice can be avoided throughout the United Kingdom, the members of the jury and the legal practitioners should bear in mind that there should always be limitations when it comes to allowing forensic science experts to freely express their personal opinions as they see fit. Given that there is a strong possibility that the experts’ opinion does not fit the physical evidences presented in court, the judge should carefully examine the sources of information wherein the experts managed to have drawn their opinion before making their final decision on conflicting testimony39. To minimize the risk of miscarriage of justice, the Law Commission on expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales recently stated that “the Committee recommended that the Forensic Science Advisory Council, judges, scientists and other key players in the criminal justice system should work together to develop a new test for determining the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings40. Even though judges are not required to conduct their own research with regards to the validity and reliability of the experts’ opinion, it is the duty and responsibility of the judges to carefully look at the sources of knowledge wherein the experts managed to draw their opinion before accepting or rejecting the experts’ evidences based on opinion41. To ensure that the statements coming from forensic science experts is based on the absolute truth is for them to be able to produce physical evidences such as laboratory samples, 35mm film-based photos, etc42. In short, the only way for the jury to determine whether or not the personal opinion coming from the forensic science experts is based on objective facts is for them to be able to present physical evidences that can prove that their statement is not simply based on personal opinion but facts. Conclusion There is a strong need to develop and implement corrective justice system to avoid wrongful conviction throughout the United Kingdom. Even though the judge has the option to consider opinions coming from forensic science expert as a valid and reliable testimony coming from a witness point-of-view, it remains the duty and responsibility of the judge to consider the extent and limitations wherein the judge should give the experts the freedom to freely express their opinions as they see fit. In general, the use of expert opinions could somehow mislead the members of the jury in terms of providing justice to all people. Since there will always be the risk wherein the experts could provide false testimony at the expense of the defendants, judges are expected to carefully examine and check whether or not the information coming from the experts are valid, accurate, and reliable. Therefore, it is highly recommended on the part of the judges to interpret expert opinions coming from highly qualified experts together with the physical evidences being submitted to them in each case. By carefully weighing the differences between facts and opinions, miscarriage of justice can be avoided. Any person who voluntarily stands as a witness of a crime can be at risk of receiving death threats. In the absence of public protection programme, defendants in criminal cases can somehow inflict life threatening situations in order to manipulate the verbal statement coming from the experts. For this reason, opinions that are hypothetical by nature should never be accepted in the court even though the witness is a forensic science expert or not. Number of Words: 2,886 References "BBC News." 11 April 2005. Anthony latest mother to be freed. Donna Anthony's is the latest in a series of well-publicised cases regarding infant deaths. 28 May 2011 . "BBC News." 6 January 2011 b. Shaken baby syndrome guidance issued by CPS. 30 May 2011 . "BailII." 29 June 1995. X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] UKHL 9. 29 May 2011 . Burns, Seamus. "New Law Journal." 27 June 2008. Low copy DNA on trial. NLJ. 2008. Vol. 158, No. 7327. 29 May 2011 . Burton, Mike A., et al. "Face Recognition in poor Quality Video Evidence from Security Surveilance." Psychological Science (1999): Vol. 10, pp. 243-248. Candilis, Philip J., Robert Weinstock and Richard Martinez. Forensic ethics and the expert witness. Springer Science & Business Media LLC, 2007. Crook, Tim. Comparative media law and ethics. Routledge, 2010. Dyer, Clare. "The Guardian." 24 January 2006. Media unfair to paediatrician, says judge. 30 May 2011 . Finkelstein, Michael O. Basic Concepts of Probability and Statistics in the Law. Springer Science Business Media LLC, 2009. Foster, Charles. "New Law Journal." 1 February 2008. Untwining the strands. NLJ. 2008. Vol. 158, No. 7306. 29 May 2011 . George, Mark. "Garden Court North." 6 December 2005. R v Ibrahima [2005] Crim LR 887. 29 May 2011 . —. "Green Court North." 6 December 2005. R v Edwards [2001] EWCA Crim 2185. 29 May 2011 . Gornall, Jonathan. "Was message of sudden infant death study misleading?" BMJ (2006): 333, p. 1165 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39031.590914.68. Gumbley v Cunningham [1989] 1 A11 ER 5. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence" . Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 529, 2008. Hoctor, Shannon. "R v Kempster (No. 2) [2008] 2 Cr App R 19." Orbiter (2009): Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 175-187. Layne, Daniel. "Internet Journal of Criminology." 2010. Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice. 28 May 2011 . "Legislation." 2011. Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991. 29 May 2011 . "Mofcom." 1998. R v Hobson [1998] 1 Cr App R 31. 29 May 2011 . Naughton, Michael. 2007. Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment. 28 May 2011 . "Parliament." 2001. Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] 2 AC 619. 29 May 2011 . Purchas LJ in Bumber Development Corporation Ltd. v Police of the Metropolis [1991] 4 A11 ER 638. In Paterson, Robert K. (ed) "Hitler and Picasso - Searching for "The Degenerate". 33 U.B.C. L. Rev. 91. 1999. R v Anthony (Donna Michelle). In "Royal Courts of Justice." 29 June 2000. 28 May 2011 . n.d. "R v Browning [1995] Crim LR 227. In Schreiber, Elliott H. and Schreiber, David E. (eds) "Use of hypnosis with witnesses of vehicular homicide"." Contemporary Hypnosis (2006): Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 40-44. R v Cannings [2004] 1 WLR 2607. In Crook, Tim (ed) "Comparative media law and ethics" . Routledge, 2010. R v Clark [2006] EWCA Crim 231. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 532, 2008. R v Coles [1995] 1 Cr App R 157. In Redmayne, Mike (ed) "Expert evidence and criminal justice". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 152, 2001. R v Donna Anthony [2005] EWCA Crim 952. In Allen, Christopher (ed) "Practical Guide to Evidence" . Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish p. 381, 2008. R v Henry [2006] 1 Cr App R 118. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 534, 2008. R v Hobson [1998] 1 Cr App R 31. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 529, 2008. R v Huckerby [2004] EWCA Civ 1029. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 534, 2008. R v Masih [1986] Crim LR 395. In Redmayne, Mike (ed) "Expert evidence and criminal justice". Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 156-157, 2001. R v Mitchell [2005] A11 ER (D) 182 (Mar). In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 529, 2008. R v Reynolds [1989] Crim LR 220. In Redmayne, Mike (ed) "Expert evidence and criminal justice". Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 156 - 157, 2001. R v Robb [1991] 93 Cr App R 161. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 529, 2008. R v Strudwick [1993] 99 Cr App R 326. In Mackay, R.D., Colman, Andrew M. and Tornton, Peter (eds) "Chapter 18 - The Admissibility of Expert Psychological and Psychiatry Testimony". 29 May 2011 . R v Walker [2003] A11 ER (D) 64. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 533, 2008. Recent developments in criminal evidence. In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 547, 2008. Redmayne, Mike. Expert evidence and criminal justice. NY: Oxford University Press, 2001. Roberts, Paul and Adrian Zuckerman. Criminal Evidences. Oxford, 2004. "Royal Courts of Justice." 29 June 2000. R v Anthony (Donna Michelle). 28 May 2011 . Scarman J in Re Fuld’s Estate (No. 3). In Keane, Adrian (ed) "The Modern Law of Evidence". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 530, 2008. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Robert J. Fogelin. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. Stone, Kate and Mark George. "Green Court North." 19 May 2008. R v Dallagher [2003] 1 Cr App R 195. 29 May 2011 . "The Law Commission." 2009. The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales. Consultation Paper No. 190. 3 June 2011 . Towl, Graham J. and David A. Crighton. Forensic Psychology. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010. "UK Parliament." 11 June 2008. New clause 31— Compensation for detention—. 28 May 2011 . Candilis, Philip J., Robert Weinstock and Richard Martinez. Forensic ethics and the expert witness. Springer Science & Business Media LLC, 2007. Read More