Making forensic science fit for justice

References

• Roberts P, editor. Expert evidence and scientific proof in criminal trials. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P. Forensic science and criminal justice. In: Hucklesby A, Wahidin A, editors. Criminal justice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013; p. 322–347.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P. Renegotiating forensic cultures: between law, science and criminal justice. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013;44:47–59. 10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.010
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saks MJ, Spellman BA. The psychological foundations of evidence law. New York, NY: New York University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett BL, Neufeld PJ. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Va Law Rev. 2009;95(1):1–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler JJ. The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: how to make DNA-match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Rev. 2001;74:1275–1305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaye DH, Hans VP, Dann BM, Farley E, Albertson S. Statistics in the jury box: how jurors respond to mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. J Empirical Legal Stud. 2007;4(4):797–834. 10.1111/jels.2007.4.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ. Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: accuracy and impact. Hastings Law J. 2008;59(5):1159–1189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmond G. Legal versus non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence. Int J Evid Proof. 2016;20(1):3–28. 10.1177/1365712715613470
   Google Scholar
• Edmond G. Impartiality, efficiency or reliability? A critical response to expert evidence law and procedure in Australia. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2010;42(2):83–99. 10.1080/00450610903258128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law Commission. Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Law Com No 325. London: The Stationery Office; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein DE. Junk science in the United States and the commonwealth. Yale J Int Law. 1996;21(1):123–182.
   Google Scholar
• Black S, N Nic Daeid. Time to think differently: catalysing a paradigm shift in forensic science. Phil Trans B. 2015; 370(1674): 1–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science. 2005;309(5736):892–895. 10.1126/science.1111565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simester A, von Hirsch A. Crimes, harms and wrongs. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Duff RA. Answering for crime. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• von Hirsch A. Censure and sanctions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P, editor. Theoretical foundations of criminal trial procedure. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter J, Roberts P, Young SNM, Dixon D, editors. The integrity of criminal process. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Reiman J, Leighton P. The rich get richer and the poor get prison: ideology, class and criminal justice. 11th ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Twining W. Theories of evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Damaška M. Truth in adjudication. Hastings Law J. 1998;49(2):289–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackstone W Sir. Commentaries on the laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1765-1769. Available from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp#intro
   Google Scholar
• Volokh A. n Guilty Men. University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1997;146:173–216. 10.2307/3312707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redmayne M. Standards of proof in civil litigation. Modern Law Rev. 1999;62(2):167–195. 10.1111/mlr.1999.62.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Whitman JQ. The origins of reasonable doubt: theological roots of the criminal trial. New Haven CT: Yale University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro BJ. Beyond reasonable doubt and probable cause: historical perspectives on the Anglo-American law of evidence. Berkeley CA: University of California Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch M. God’s signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour. 2003;27(2):93–97. 10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00068-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch M, Cole SA, McNally R, Jordan K. Truth machine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2008. 10.7208/chicago/9780226498089.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Gans J. Ozymandias on trial: wrongs and rights in DNA cases. In: Roberts P, Hunter J, editors. Criminal evidence and human rights: reimagining common law procedural traditions. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2012; p. 195–214.
   Google Scholar
• Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: the control and avoidance of contamination in laboratory activities involving DNA evidence recovery and analysis. FSR-G-208 ( 31 December 2015). Available from www.gov.uk/government/publications/laboratory-dna-anti-contamination-guidance.
   Google Scholar
• Himmelreich C. Germany’s phantom serial killer: a DNA blunder. Time Magazine; 27 March 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Gerstein C, Prescott JJ. Process costs and police discretion. Harvard Law Rev Forum. 2015;128:268–288.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon D. Law in policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Reiner R, editor. Policing. vol II. Aldershot: Dartmouth; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt H. Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil. London: Penguin; 2006 [1963].
   Google Scholar
• Langer M. ‘From legal transplants to legal translations: the globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard Int Law J. 2004;45(1):1–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Örücü E. Law as transposition. Int Compar Law Quarterly. 2002;51(2):205–223.
   Google Scholar
• Damaška M. The uncertain fate of evidentiary transplants: Anglo-American and continental experiments. Am J Compar Law. 1997;45:839–852. 10.2307/841021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legrand P. The impossibility of “legal transplants”. Maastricht J Euro Compar Law. 1997;4:111–124. 10.1177/1023263X9700400202
   Google Scholar
• Legrand P. What, “Legal Transplants”? In: Nelken D, Feest J, editors. Adapting legal cultures. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2001; p. 55–69.
   Google Scholar
• MRamsay. The effectiveness of the Forensic Science Service. Home Office Research Study No 92. London: HMSO; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Brown DK. Free market criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457877.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Matthews R, editor. Privatizing criminal justice. London: Sage; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P. What price a free market in forensic science services?: the organization and regulation of science in the criminal process. Br J Criminol. 1996;36(1):37–60. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawless CJ. Policing markets: the contested shaping of neo-liberal forensic science. Br J Criminol. 2011;51(4):671–689. 10.1093/bjc/azr025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Forensic science strategy. Fourth Report of Session 2016-17. HC 501. London: TSO; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Office Home. Forensic science strategy. Cm 9217. March 2016.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. The home office’s oversight of forensic services. ( December 2014). Available from www.nao.org.uk/report/home-offices-oversight-forensic-services/.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Forensic science. Second Report of Session 2013-14. HC 610. London: TSO; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Giannelli PC. The abuse of scientific evidence in criminal cases: the need for independent crime laboratories. Va. J. Soc. Policy Law. 1997;4:439–478.
   Google Scholar
• PCGiannelli False credentials. Crim Justice. 2001; 16- Fall: 40 & 64.
   Google Scholar
• Giannelli PC. Houston! We have a problem! Crim Justice. 2006; 21- Sum: 40–41.
   Google Scholar
• Giannelli PC. Wrongful convictions and forensic science: the need to regulate crime labs. North Carol Law Rev. 2007;86:163–235.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon CR. Royal commission of inquiry in respect to the case of Edward Charles Splatt. Adelaide: Government Printer; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Forensic Science South Australia webpages. Available from www.agd.sa.gov.au/about-agd/what-we-do/services-government/forensic-science-sa.
   Google Scholar
• Doward J. How police put their faith in the “expert” witness who was a fraud. Observer. 23 March 2008. Available from www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law.
   Google Scholar
• Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. FSR-G-217 (30 October). 2015. Available from www.gov.uk/government/publications/cognitive-bias-effects-relevant-to-forensic-science-examinations.
   Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Cole SA. The vision in “blind” justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010;17(2):161–167. 10.3758/PBR.17.2.161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Rev. 2002;90(1):1–56. 10.2307/3481305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forensic Science Regulator. Homepage. Available from www.gov.uk/government/organisations/forensic-science-regulator.
   Google Scholar
• Akerlof GA. The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ. 1970;84(3):488–500. 10.2307/1879431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forensic Science Regulator. Annual report: November 2014-November 2015. Forensic Science Regulator (4 December) 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Kershaw A. Professional standards, public accreditation and the administration of justice. In: Fraser J, Williams R, editors. Handbook of Forensic Science. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2009; p. 546–571.
   Google Scholar
• Stein A. Constitutional evidence law. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2008;61(1):65–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts P, Hunter J, editors. Criminal evidence and human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson JD, Summers SJ. The internationalisation of criminal evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 10.1017/CBO9781139093606
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P, Zuckerman A. Criminal evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Advocacy Training Council. Raising the bar: the handling of vulnerable witnesses, victims and defendants in court. 2011. Available from www.theadvocatesgateway.org/toolkits.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyano L, Keenan C. Child abuse: law and policy across boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P. The science of proof: forensic science evidence in English criminal trials. In: Fraser J, Williams R, editors. Handbook of forensic science. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2009; p. 446–484.
   Google Scholar
• Rozelle SD. Daubert, schmaubert: criminal defendants and the short end of the science stick. Tulsa Law Rev. 2007;43(2):597–607.
   Google Scholar
• Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, Ginsburg GP, Merlino ML, Dahir V. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum Behav. 2001;25(5):433–458. 10.1023/A:1012899030937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montz CL. Trial judges as scientific gatekeepers after Daubert, Joiner, Kumho Tire, and amended Rule 702: is anyone still seriously buying this? UWLA Law Rev. 2001;33:87–115.
   Google Scholar
• Risinger DM. Navigating expert reliability: are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock? Albany Law Rev. 2000;64:99–149.
   Google Scholar
• Hamer M. How a forensic scientist fell foul of the law. New Sci. 1981;91:575–576.
   Google Scholar
• Ward scientists condemned. The Guardian, 5 June 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser J, Williams R, editors. Handbook of forensic science. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser J. Forensic science: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. 10.1093/actrade/9780199558056.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Williams A. Forensic criminology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Lawless C. Forensic science: a sociological introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science. v.3.0 (8 March) 2015. Available from www.enfsi.eu/news/enfsi-guideline-evaluative-reporting-forensic-science.
   Google Scholar
• Aitken C, editor. Special issue: papers on the R v T debate. Law Probab Risk. 2012; 11(4) 255. 10.1093/lpr/mgs014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association of Forensic Science Providers. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci Justice. 2009;49(3):161–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawid P, Twining W, Vasilaki M, editors. Evidence, inference and enquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P, Aitken C, Jackson G. From admissibility to interpretation: new guidance on expert evidence. Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. 2015; 179: 538–542 (Part I) & 564-566 (Part II).
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P, Aitken C, Jackson G, Redmayne M When the numbers count. Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. 2011; 175: 304–306 (Part I) & 319 (Part II).
   Google Scholar
• Aitken C, Roberts P, Jackson G. Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings. Practitioner Guide No 1. London: Royal Statistical Society; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson G, Aitken C, Roberts P. Case assessment and interpretation of expert evidence. Practitioner Guide No 4. London: Royal Statistical Society; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lempert R. Some caveats concerning DNA as criminal identification evidence: with thanks to the reverend Bayes. Cardozo Law Review. 1991;13:303–341.
   Google Scholar
• Lempert RO. Analyzing relevance. Michigan Law Rev. 1977;75:1021–1057. 10.2307/1288024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson B, Vignaux GA. ‘Probability – the logic of the law. Oxf J Leg Stud. 1993;13(4):457–478. 10.1093/ojls/13.4.457
   Google Scholar
• Redmayne M. Bayesianism and proof. In: Freeman M, Reece H, editors. Science in court. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate; 1998; p. 61–81.
   Google Scholar
• Tribe LH. ‘Trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Rev. 1971;84(6):1329–1393. 10.2307/1339610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkelstein MO, Fairley WB. A comment on “trial by mathematics”. Harvard Law Rev. 1971;84(8):1801–1809. 10.2307/1339569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen R, Redmayne M, editors. Bayesianism and juridical proof. Int J Evid Proof. 1997; 1(5): 253–360.
   Google Scholar
• Allen R, Roberts P, editors. Special issue on the reference class problem. Int J Evid Proof. (2007); 11(4): 243–317.
   Google Scholar
• Tillers P. If wishes were horses: discursive comments on attempts to prevent individuals from being unfairly burdened by their reference class. Law, Probability and Risk. 2005;4:33–49. 10.1093/lpr/mgi001
   Google Scholar
• Redmayne M, Roberts P, Aitken C, Jackson G. Forensic science evidence in question. Crim Law Rev. 2011;347–356.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Saks MJ, Kidd RF. Human information processing and adjudication: trial by heuristics. Law and Society Rev. 1981;15(1):123–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B. The likelihood ratio as value of evidence: more than a question of numbers. Law, Probability & Risk. 2012;11(4):303–315. 10.1093/lpr/mgs019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitken C, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2004. 10.1002/0470011238
   Google Scholar
• Berger CEH, Slooten K. The LR does not exist. Sci Justice. 2016;56(5):388–391. 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattenden R. Pre-verdict judicial fact-finding in criminal trials with juries. Oxford J Legal Stud. 2009;29(1):1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redmayne M. Expert evidence and criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267805.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P. The new interdisciplinary forensic science. J Law Soc. 2016;43(4):647–660. 10.1111/jols.2016.43.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts P. Interdisciplinarity in legal research. In: McConville M, Chui WH, editors. Research methods for law. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2017; p. 90–133.
   Google Scholar