Science in the courtroom: is there, and should there, be a better way?

Abstract

Justice Stephen Breyer of the US Supreme Court once wrote: ’In this age of science, science should expect to find a warm welcome, perhaps a permanent home, in our courtrooms… Our decisions should reflect a proper scientific and technical understanding so that the law can respond to the needs of the public.’ That was nearly two decades ago. The ‘welcome’ science receives in our courtrooms has been at times controversial for at least a century, if not more, and is still problematic, difficult and often contentious. Balancing the victim’s and the community’s interest in the detection and punishment of crime, the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the state’s interest in a fair, accessible and just judicial system, all make the entry of the world of science in our courtrooms, and the use of science by fact-finders and tribunals, a fundamental and continuing question that needs continually to be addressed and answered in our courts. As another American Judge once said: ‘You are going to be playing in my ballpark and by my rules …’. Is there, and should there, be a better way?

Keywords:

• Expert evidence
• justice system
• forensic evidence

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Sean Mallett, Research Counsel at the District Court in Wellington, for his assistance with the preparation of this paper.

Notes

1. National Research Council. The age of expert testimony; science in the courtroom. Washington, DC, U.S.A: National Academy Press; 2002, at 15.

2. Wigmore on evidence. 3rd ed, Chadbourn Revision. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A: 1940; Vol II §563 at 760.

3. Dawkins R. The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin; 1986, at 15.

4. Lynch M, McNally R. ‘Science,’ ‘common sense,’ and DNA evidence: a legal controversy about the public understanding of science. Public Understand. Sci. 2003;12:83–103.

5. Popper K. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge; 1963, at 338.

6. Breyer S. Science in the courtroom. Iss Sci Technol. 200;16(4):52.

7. R v Andrews [2008] EWCA Crim 2908, per Lord Judge CJ.

8. High Court Rules, rr 9.43–9.46.

9. R v Seu CA81/05, 8 December 2005.

10. [2008] NZCA 126 at [169].

11. (2005) 22 CRNZ 476.

12. Buckley v Rice Thomas (1554) 1 Plowden 118.

13. R v Lundy [2014] NZHC 2527 (Pre-trial ruling on admissibility issues) at para [31] ff.

14. Hamlet, Act I, Scene 4.

15. R v Mohan 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9.

16. R v Calder HC Christchurch T154/94, 12 April 1995, at 7.

17. Law Commission Evidence (NZLC R55, 1999) Vol 2 at [C99]. Wellington, New Zealand.

18. ‘For thogh we slepe, or wake, or rome, or ryde, Ay fleeth the tyme; it nyl no man abyde.’Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400), The prologue to the clerk's tale, 1368.

19. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 US 136 (1997); and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 US 137 (1999).

20. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579 (1993) at 593.

21. Lundy v R [2013] UKPC 28 at 138, relying on R v J-L J [2000] 2 SCR 600.

22. R v Lundy [2014] NZHC 2527, per Kós J at [55](e).

23. At [55](b).

24. Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(4).

25. R v Clarke [1995] 2 Cr App R 425 at 429.

26. B v Bain [2004] 1 NZLR 638.

27. R v Hartman 2015 ONCA 498 (6 July 2015).

28. Lundy v R [2013] UKPC 28 at [120].

29. At [122].

30. Tinsley Y. Science in the criminal courts: tool in service, challenge to legal authority or indispensable ally? NZULR. 2013;25:844.

31. For example, see the references cited by Tinsley, op cit, at fns 92, 94 and 97.

32. At 863.

33. For example, in some Commerce Act 1986 (pursuant to ss 77 and 78) and Land Valuation Tribunal Act 1948 (s 19) proceedings.

34. Saks M. The phantom of the courthouse. Jurimetrics. 1995;35:233 at 240.