1,031
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Commentary

Antipodean forensics: a comment on ANZFSS’s response to PCAST

&
Pages 140-151 | Received 13 Mar 2017, Accepted 30 May 2017, Published online: 01 Aug 2017

References

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 15]. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
  • National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
  • Obama B. The president’s role in advancing criminal justice reform. Harv L Rev. 2016;130(3):811–866.
  • Aronson J. Genetic witness: science, law, and controversy in the making of DNA profiling. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 2007.
  • Kaye DH. The double helix and the law of evidence. U.S.A.: Harvard University Press; 2010.
  • Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society. ANZFSS council response to the president’s council of advisors on science and technology report; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 15]. Available from: http://anzfss.org/
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Commision on Forensic Science [cited 2016 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/ncfs
  • The Fingerprint Inquiry. The fingerprint inquiry report. Scotland: ASP Group Scotland; 2011.
  • Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis United States of America. Latent print examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standrds and Technology; 2012.
  • National Research Council. DNA technology in forensic science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1992.
  • National Research Council. The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1996.
  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods Reference List. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 15]. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensics_references.pdf
  • The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society. Code of professional practice for members of the anzfss [cited 2016 Nov 15]. Available from: http://anzfss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ANZFSS-Code-of-Professional-Practice-Final.pdf
  • Edmond G. Forensic science evidence and the conditions for rational (jury) evaluation. Melbourne Univ Law Rev. 2015;39:1–48.
  • Lander ES. Response to the ANZFSS council statement on the president’s council of advisors on science and technology report. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;49(4):1–3.
  • Cordner S, Ranson D, Bassed R. The foundations of the comparison forensic sciencies: report of the president’s council of advisors on science and technology. J Law Med. 2016;24(2):297–302.
  • Found B, Edmond G. Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2012;44(2):193–196.10.1080/00450618.2011.644260
  • Edmond G, Martire K, Kemp R, Hamer D, Hibbert B, Ligertwood A, Porter G, San Roque M, Searston R, Tangen J. How to cross-examine forensic scientists: a guide for lawyers. Aust Bar Rev. 2014;39:174–197.
  • Morrison GS, Kaye DH, Balding DJ, Taylor D, Dawid P, Aitken CG, Gittelson S, Zadora G, Robertson B, Willis S, et al. A comment on the pcast report: skip the “match”/”non-match” stage. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;272:e7–e9.10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018
  • Edmond G, Martire KA. Forensic science in criminal courts: implications for Australia. Aust Bar Rev. 2016;41:367.
  • Ward T, Edmond G, Martire K, Wortley N. Forensic science, reliability and scientific validity: advice from America. Crim L Rev. 2017;5:357–378.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.