Advanced search
Publication Cover
Sound Studies
An Interdisciplinary Journal
Volume 9, 2023 - Issue 2: Forensic voices: cultures of sonic detection and identification in the West; Guest Editors: Karin Bijsterveld and Anna Kvicalova
Submit an article Journal homepage
210
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Hearing voices: forensic speaker identification technology and expert listening in the American courtroom

Michael MopasDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, CanadaCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
Pages 209-232 | Received 02 Feb 2023, Accepted 29 Jun 2023, Published online: 11 Jul 2023

References

  • Barnett, R. 1974. “Voiceprints: The End of the Yellow Brick Road.” University of San Francisco Law Review 8:702–727.
  • Bijsterveld, K. 2021. “Slicing Sound: Speaker Identification and Sonic Skills at the Stasi, 1966-1989.” Isis 112 (2): 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1086/714826.
  • Bolt, R. H., F. S. Cooper, E. David, P. B. Denes, J. M. Pickett, and K. N. Stevens. 1970. “Speaker Identification by Speech Spectrograms: A Scientist’s View of Its Reliability for Legal Purposes.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47 (2B): 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1911935.
  • Catanzaro, M., E. Tola, P. Hummel, and A. Viciano. 2017. “Voice Analysis Should Be Used with Caution in Court.” Scientific American (online article), January 25. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/voice-analysis-should-be-used-with-caution-in-court/.
  • CNN. 2012. “Owen to Compare Martin Audio to 911 Call.” CNN (online interview), April 2. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2012/04/02/exp-point-owen-three.cnn.
  • Cole, S. 2002. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029682.
  • Cole, S., and A. Bertenthal. 2017. “Science, Technology, Society, and Law.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13 (1): 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113550.
  • Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community, National Research Council. 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington: National Academies Press.
  • Cutler, P. E., C. Thigpen, T. Young, and E. B. Mueller. 1972. “Comments: The Evidentiary Value of Spectrographic Voice Identification.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 63 (3): 343–355.
  • Daston, L., and P. Galison. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
  • Dioso-Villa, R. 2016. “Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed? Judicial Gatekeeping of Fire and Arson Evidence.” Law & Policy 38 (1): 54–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12047.
  • Edmond, G. 1999. “Science, Law, and Narrative: Helping the ‘Facts’ to Speak for Themselves.” Southern Illinois University Law Review 23:555–583.
  • Edmond, G. 2001. “The Law-Set: The Legal-Scientific Production of Medical Propriety.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 26 (2): 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600204.
  • Edmond, G., S. Cole, E. Cunliffe, and A. Roberts. 2013. “Admissibility Compared: The Reception of Incriminating Expert Evidence (I.E., Forensic Science) in Four Adversarial Jurisdictions.” University of Denver Criminal Law Review 3:31–109.
  • Edmond, G., K. Martire, and M. San Roque. 2011. “Unsound Law: Issues with (‘Expert’) Voice Comparison Evidence.” Melbourne University Law Review 35:52–112.
  • Evershed, N., and J. Taylor. 2023. “AI Can Fool Voice Recognition Used to Verify Identity by Centrelink and Australian Tax Office.” The Guardian ( online article), March 16. Accessed May 29, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/16/voice-system-used-to-verify-identity-by-centrelink-can-be-fooled-by-ai.
  • Giannelli, P. 2010. “Forensic Science: Why No Research?” Fordham Urban Law Journal 38 (2): 503–518.
  • Gieryn, T. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.
  • Gieryn, T. 1995. “Boundaries of Science.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393–443, revised ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gieryn, T. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226824420.001.0001.
  • Gold, E., and P. French. 2011. “International Practices in Forensic Speaker Comparisons.” International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 18 (2): 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.293.
  • Gold, E., and P. French. 2019. “International Practices in Forensic Speaker Comparisons: Second Survey.” International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 26 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.38028.
  • Hans, V., and M. Saks. 2018. “Improving Judge and Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence.” Daedalus 147 (4): 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00527.
  • Hightower, K., and M. Schneider. 2013. “Prosecutors’ Audio Experts Cannot Testify About 911 Call at Zimmerman Trial.” The Washington Post, June 23 (The Suburban Edition), A07.
  • Hollien, H. 2002. Forensic Voice Identification. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Huber, P. 1991. Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
  • Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Kersta, L. G. 1962. “Voiceprint Identification.” Nature 196 (4861): 1253–1257. https://doi.org/10.1038/1961253a0.
  • Kersta, L. G. 1966. “Speaker Recognition and Identification by Voiceprint.” Connecticut Bar Journal 40:586.
  • Koenig, B. E. 2002. “Review of Forensic Voice Identification, by H. Hollien.” Journal of Forensic Identification 52 (6): 762–766.
  • Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Li, X., and M. Mills. 2019. “Vocal Features: From Voice Identification to Speech Recognition by Machine.” Technology and Culture 60 (2): S129–S160. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2019.0066.
  • Lynch, M., S. A. Cole, R. McNally, and K. Jordan. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Maher, R. C. 2015. “Lending an Ear in the Courtroom: Forensic Acoustics.” Acoustics Today 11 (3): 22–29.
  • Mills, M. 2010. “Deaf Jam: From Inscription to Reproduction to Information.” Social Text 28 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2009-059.
  • Mnookin, J. L. 2001. “Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Reliability.” Virginia Law Review 87 (8): 102–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073905.
  • Morrison, G. S., F. H. Sahito, G. Jardine, D. Djokic, S. Clavet, S. Berghs, and C. Goemans Dorny. 2016. “INTERPOL Survey of the Use of Speaker Identification by Law Enforcement Agencies.” Forensic Science International 263:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.044.
  • National Academy of Sciences. 1979. On the Theory and Practice of Voice Identification. Washington: National Academies Press.
  • Poza, F., and D. Begault. 2005. “Voice Identification and Elimination Using Aural-Spectrographic Protocols.” In Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society 26thInternational Conference: Audio Forensics in the Digital Age, 1–8. Denver CO, July 7-9.
  • Ramírez-i-Ollé, M. 2015. “Rhetorical Strategies for Scientific Authority: A Boundary-Work Analysis of ‘Climategate.” Science as Culture 24 (4): 384–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2015.1041902.
  • Rees, G., and D. White. 2022. “Judging Post-Controversy Expertise: Judicial Discretion and Scientific Marginalisation in the Courtroom.” Science as Culture 32 (1): 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2114335.
  • Saks, M. 2009. “Judging Admissibility.” The Journal of Corporation Law 35 (1): 135–157.
  • Taipale, J. 2019. “Judges’ Socio-Technical Review of Contested Expertise.” Social Studies of Science 49 (3): 310–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719854538.
  • Tosi, O., H. J. Oyer, W. Lashbrook, C. Pedney, J. Nichol, and W. Nash. 1972. “Experiment on Voice Identification.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51 (6B): 2030–2043. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913064.
  • Valverde, M. 2003. Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cases cited

  • Commonwealth v. Lykus. 2005. No. 43558 ( Mass. Cmmw. Dec. 30, 2005), rev’d, 885 N.E. 2d 769 ( Mass 2008).
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993. 509 US 579.
  • Frye v. United States. 1923. 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
  • Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael. 1999. 526 US. ( 1999).
  • People v. Chaisson. 1974. Crim. No. 73-24676 (Cir. Ct. Ingham Cty, Mich. 1974).
  • People v. Chapter. 1973. Crim. No. 65050 (Super. Ct. Marin Cty, Cal. 1973).
  • People v. King. 1968. 266 Cal. App. 2d 437, 72 Cal. Rptr. 478 ( 1968).
  • People v. Straehle. 1966. Crim. No. 9323/64 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty., NY 1966).
  • People v. Jeter. 1992. 80 N.Y.2d 818 (N.Y. 1992)
  • State v. Cary. 1967. 49 N.J. 343, 230 A.2d 384 ( 1967).
  • State of Florida v. Zimmerman. 2012. 18th Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, FL.
  • State ex rel. Trimble v. Hedman. 1971. 291 Minn. 442, 192 N.W.2d 432 ( 1971).
  • United States v. Raymond. 1972. 337 F. Supp. 641 (D.D.C. 1972).
  • United States v. Wright. 1967. 17 U.S.C.M.A. 183, 37 C.M.R. 447 ( 1967).

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:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

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:

Request Academic Permissions

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.

Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.