Forensic science and the myth of adversarial testing

ABSTRACT

This article explains why the adversarial trial has not been an effective mechanism for regulating the admission and use of many forms of forensic science evidence. Drawing upon mainstream scientific perspectives, and using an historical study of reported decisions involving latent fingerprint evidence, it documents how lawyers and judges never required forensic scientists to formally evaluate their procedures or express opinions in ways that are scientifically defensible. For more than a century, every challenge to latent fingerprint evidence focused on legal and procedural issues, or the significance of fingerprints for the case. Questions about validity and scientific reliability (eg, Can you do it? How accurate are you?) were not asked until 2015. The study shows that legal approaches and practices were, and are, insensitive to mainstream scientific perspectives on latent fingerprint evidence. It demonstrates that our practices around the admission and presentation of fingerprint evidence (and implicitly many other types of forensic science and medicine) are fundamentally misconceived, that our lawyers and judges genuinely struggle with technical evidence and that our legal institutions have developed rules and commitments that prevent them from receiving the benefits of mainstream scientific research and advice.

KEYWORDS:

• admissibility
• cross-examination
• evidence
• expert
• fingerprint
• history
• safeguard
• trial

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 All challenges necessarily have legal dimensions, but epistemological challenges are focused on some aspect of the reliability of the identification.

2 On whether these reports are applicable to the forensic science in Australia, see Edmond (2015c), Edmond and Martire (2017b) and Lander (2017).

3 DNA profiling is exceptional in this regard and is discussed in the conclusion.

4 See, eg, Western Australia v Cunningham (No 3) [2018] WASCA 207; Boski v Biffin [2015] NSWSC 363; R v SA, DD and ES [2011] NSWCCA 60, [6]ff; R v Carr (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 724, [10], [27]; Aydin v The Queen [2010] VSCA 190; R v Tang [2010] VSC 578; McNeill v The Queen [2008] FCAFC 80, [113]–[120]; R v McNeill (Ruling No 1) [2007] NFSC 2, [104]ff; Jabbour v Hicks (2007) 183 A Crim R 297; R v Fouyaxis (No 2) [2007] SADC 62; Lackenby v Kirkman [2006] WASC 164; R v Millard [2006] ACTSC 56; Maguire v Beaton [2005] NSWSC 1241; Pong Su (No 2) [2004] VSC 492, [9]ff; R v Delgado-Guerra; Ex parte A-G, [2002] 2 Qd R 384; R v Knight (aka Black) [2001] NSWCCA 114; R v Cvitko [2001] SASC 72, [49]; Lednar v Magistrates Court [2000] VSC 549; Cox v Robinson [2000] QCA 454; Mickelberg & Ors v The Queen & Anor [1998] WASCA 55; R v Sparkes [1996] TASSC 106; Grollo v Bates; Dessau; Macauley and Commonwealth of Australia [1994] FCA 1293; DPP v Morrison, [1993] 1 VR 573 (consent); R v Browning (1991) 103 FLR 425; Narburup v O’Brien [1991] 1 NTLR 63; R v McPhail (1988) 36 A Crim R 390; Bonder v Howell [1984] WAR 76; Fullerton v Commissioner of Police [1984] 1 NSWLR 159; Japaljarri v Cooke (1982) 64 FLR 314; Coxan v Mazey [1981] Tas R 209; R v Boland [1974] VR 849; Carr v The Queen (1973) 127 CLR 662; Trobridge v Hardy (1955) 94 CLR 147.

5 See eg, Tema v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 41, [73]ff; R v Morgan [2009] VSCA 225, [28]–[32]; CMH (a child) v Bower [2009] WASC 347; Halmi v R [2008] NSWCCA 259, [91]; Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179, [33]–[34], [59]ff; R v Maloney [2004] NSWCCA 250, [42]ff; Maniaci v The Queen [2000] WASCA 195; R v Peel [1999] 2 Qd R 400; Regina v Harrison [1998] NSWSC 133 (CCA); R v Bartels (1986) 44 SASR 260; R v Moore [1982] Qd R 162; Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319; R v O'Callaghan [1976] VR 676, 678.

6 The number of points arises sporadically, though usually in response to prompting in cross-examination. See R v Graham (2017) 325 FLR 21, [43]; CZB v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 208, [86]; JP, [27]; R v Milos [2014] QCA 314, [132]; HZXD v Innovation Australia (2010) 80 ATR 939, [17]; Soutar v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWDC 95, [60]; R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681, [144]; Bennett v Police [2005] SASC 167, [15], [17], [39]–[40]; Bennett v Police [2005] SASC 415, [5]–[7], [22], [23], [28]; Mickelberg v The Queen [2004] WASCA 145, [186]–[187], [192], [310], [320]–[322], [328], [329], [337], [487], [526]; R v Burling [2002] NSWCCA 298, [19]; R v Walsh (1993) 70 A Crim R 408; Re Niko Tomicic v R [1989] FCA 333, [16]; R v Moore [1982] Qd R 162, 169; MacDonald v A-G (Cth) (1980) 24 SASR, 294, 299.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (LP160100008 and LP170100086).