Department of Chemistry Forensic Science

Question: Discuss, with examples, how the outcomes of past appeal cases involving the use of expert witnesses might affect the use of expert testimony in the future?Consider: The role of the expert witness High profile appeal cases Regulatory bodies for expert witnesses Current standpoint on expert witnesses Future considerations / impact on forensic science Answer: Introduction The present study has been done with a view to analyse and discuss the consequences of past appeal cases that involved utilisation of expert witness and their impacts on the utilisation of expert testimony in the context of forensic science and in general as well. In the process of analysis, a step by step approach has been adopted discussing roles and responsibilities of expert witness, the impacts of high profile appeal cases, regulatory bodies in context to expert witness, current stance on expert witness, future considerations and impact of the same on forensic science. In the conclusion section, the major inferences obtained out of the discussions have been stated especially in context to the impacts of past appeal cases on use of expert testimony. Discussion The role of expert witness An expert can be defined as somebody with learning or experience of a specific field the magnitude of which is more than that of a layman. An expert witness is an expert who makes this information and experience accessible to a court to help it comprehend the issues of a case and accordingly achieve a just and sound choice. Daly (1999) condensed the roles and obligations of experts in the Ikarian Reefer 1993 2 LILR 68, 81-82. This says that expert proof exhibited to the court ought to be, and ought to be seen to be, the autonomous result of the expert uninfluenced as to structure or substance by the exigencies of prosecution. Moreover, an expert witness ought to give autonomous aid to the court through target impartial assessment in connection to matters inside his or her expertise. An expert witness ought to make it clear when a specific question or issue falls outside his or her expertise. Furthermore, an expert witness ought to express the realities or presumptions whereupon his or her supposition is based (Hobbs, 1992). He or she ought not to exclude to consider material truths which could degrade his finished up conclusion. On the off chance that an expert's conclusion is not appropriately examined on the grounds that he or she considers that lacking information is accessible, then this must be expressed with a sign that the feeling is close to a temporary one. On the off chance that the expert is not able to declare that the report contains reality, every bit of relevant information and only reality without some qualification, that qualification ought not to be mentioned in the report. In the event that, after report exchange, an expert witness alters his or her perspective on a material matter having perused the other side's expert's report, or for some other reason, such change of perspective ought to be conveyed to the next side as soon as possible and to the court (Hobbs, 1992). Where expert testimony alludes to photos, plans, computations, investigations, estimations, review reports, or other comparable records, they must be given to the inverse party in the meantime the reports are exchanged A later case further cleared up the roles and responsibilities of the expert witness (Toulmin HHJ in Anglo Group plc v Winther Brown Co. Ltd.2000). This states that an expert witness ought to at all the stages in the system, on the premise of the testimony as he or she comprehends it, give autonomous aid to the court and the gatherings by method for fair-minded supposition in connection to matters inside his or her expertise. This is applicable both for primary expert meetings and testimony at trial. The expert witness ought not give proof or sentiments in respect to what the expert himself would have done in comparative circumstances or overall try to usurp the part of the judge. In addition to this, the expert's proof ought to typically be bound to specialized matters on which the court will be aided by getting a clarification, or to testimony of regular expert practice. He or she ought to co-work with the expert of the other party or in endeavouring to tight the specialized issue s in debate at the soonest conceivable phase of the methodology and to dispose of or place in connection any fringe issues (Gudjonsson, 2003). The expert testimony introduced to the court ought to be, and be seen to be, the autonomous result of the expert uninfluenced as to structure or substance by the exigencies of the suit (Horne and Mullen, 2008). He or she ought to co-work with alternate experts in going to without preference gatherings as essential and in trying to discover regions of understanding and to characterize definitely areas of difference to be set out in the joint articulation of experts requested by the court. An expert witness ought to express the actualities or suppositions whereupon his or her conclusion is based. He ought not to preclude to consider material realities which could degrade his closed feeling. Where an expert is of the assessment that his decisions are taking into account insufficient real data he ought to say as much expressly. An expert witness ought to make it clear when a specific question or issue falls outside his expertise. An expert ought to be prepared to re-evaluate his feeling, and if suitable, to alter his opinion when he has gotten new data or has considered the sentiment of the other expert. He ought to do as such at the most punctual open door (Blau, 2000). High profile appeal cases As a discipline, forensic science was once considered effective and trustworthy. However, high profile appeal cases in the instances of the Maguire family and the Birmingham Six disparaged the criminological work included and cultivated doubt in the discipline. In any case, the greatest risk to the utilization of forensic science in the courts of UK is not doubt. The primary risk occurred when the Home Office Forensic Science Service (FSS) turned into an officially executive agency held at a manageable distance from government until it has the capacity ended up becoming self-supportive (Blom-Cooper et al., 2007). The office was given strict budgetary focuses for its work and from that time, its researchers have needed to charge the police for everything sent in for investigation. As investigative departments try to cut the expense of investigations and hence they have felt obligated to confine the help they look for from forensic groups. Some are hesitant even to call a researcher to the crime scene, where key choices are made in collecting evidences and selecting things for testing that is helpful in investigating a crime. Currently police officers are doing these sort of activities as forensic scientists are charging high. Many scientists have started leaving the Home Office to set up free forensic organizations gaining practical experience in defence work. They need to spend so much time focusing on the monetary side of things and meeting their day by day quantity. These scientists are not persuaded that the business strengths methodology is the right approach to mastermind the financing of something as key to the police. The Home Office demands that the FSS earns back the original investment not long from now. In any case the ex-researchers expect that no less than one of its six research centres may need to close. The option is to set up charges for the police, or convince them to utilize criminological expertise all the more frequently. Many scientists believe that exceptionally disturbing stuffs have started to happen and the impacts are gradually witness able. These scientists expect that police strengths are turning to sub-standard research facilities to spare cash. Such places undercut costs, yet can just do as such in light of the fact that they are taking shortcuts on tests. According to these researchers, forensic science can be an enormously influential apparatus if utilised carefully. One key reason for concern is the absence of consistency in the preparation of youthful measurable researchers, for whom there is no formal accreditation framework. Recently, the requirement for an autonomous measurable science consultative gathering to administer gauges was a key suggestion of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. Anyhow the Government has yet to react and for the present, pretty much anyone can set up as a scientific examiner. Another reason is that earning forensic researchers have two primary courses by which they can make entry in to the arena. After a first science-based degree, they can apply to the Metropolitan Police, which has its own inward preparing plan, or immediate to one of the Home Office research centres. On the other hand, they can take the expert degree course on offer at Strathclyde University, which is distant from everyone else in Britain in offering a college class with the expression "Forensic" in its title. It is likewise one of just two that run postgraduate courses, the other being King's College, London. These researchers are of the view that the UK government should make a national measurable science establishment to help to restore the believability and certainty of the forensic science discipline. Regulatory bodies of expert witness Federal Rules The Federal courts by Article VII of the Federal Rules of Evidence is engaged in governing utilisation of experts as well as opinion testimony (PhlogaiteÃÅ'„s, Zwart and Fraser, 2013). Tenet 702 states that in the event that investigative, specialized or other particular learning aid the trier of reality to comprehend the proof or to focus a reality in issue, a witness qualified as an expert or expert by information, aptitude, experience, preparing, or training, may affirm thereto as a conclusion . The report advisory group notes clarify that the principle permits experts to make the further stride of recommending the surmising which ought to be drawn from applying the specific information to the certainties (Malone and Zwier, 2006).These recommendations are made by the master as assessments. One noteworthy impact of the Federal Rules was to annul the prohibition on supposition affirmation setting off to an extreme issue. Principle 704 gives; (an) Except as gave in subdivision (b), affirmation as a supposition or induction generally permissible is not questionable in light of the fact that it grasps an extreme issue to be chosen by the trier of reality. The warning council notes stretch that the topic of suitability ought to concentrate on the supportiveness of the testimony and not its structure. The notes go ahead to bring up that other rules take into consideration rejection of testimony which squanders time. These different rules give sufficient testimony against the testimony of suppositions which would just tell the jury what consequence to reach. It is dependent upon the trial judge to adjust the value of the master's testimony with the potential for bias or exercise in futility (Pyrek, 2007). Legal Experts The customary regular law principle against testimony on legal issues has been dissolved by the establishment of the Federal Rules. Before, it was assumed that the judge has every bit of idea about law, and along these lines had no requirement for master testimony on legal matters (Winfield, 2003). The Federal Rules make no such refinement, and rather give that the judge may concede any testimony which will support the trier of actuality in settling on a choice. What's more, the abrogation of "a definitive issue" control by F.R.E. 704, opens the entryway for experts to state sentiments on extreme issues, regardless of the fact that such sentiments require legal conclusions. Before, the main special case to the principle against legal affirmation, was the remittance for an expert to affirm where issues of outside law were concerned (Daly, 1999). This was allowed, in light of the fact that the assumption that the judge was mindful of such law was seen to be unmistakably inapplicable. With the multiplication of cutting edge statutory law, and an ever expanding number of legal choices on the books, the assumption that the judge is totally acquainted with all parts of U.S. law, particularly the more perplexing and dark ranges of practice, is itself being disintegrated. With the centre of the Federal. Rules on support as the real criteria, courts appear to be all the more ready to concede testimony from experts on what are in fact legal issues. Current standpoint of expert witness The immense greater part of common cases are settled out of the court, and with a large portion of them, the role play of an expert do not more distant than exploring the circumstances and giving the associated solicitor an interval report or appraisal of the specialized quality of the customer's case. This basically bulletin part is massively amplified on the off chance that it ought to be chosen to move ahead to trial (Wall, 2009). If this is the case, the expert is expected to provide advice on the specialized substance of appeals for further particulars or the reactions to such demands, the specialized matters showed in the announcement of case and the specialized hugeness of archives revealed by the contradicting side and in addition to create his own report for utilization in court. Besides this, after exchange of reports, the expert is requested for an evaluation of the report arranged by the expert for the restricting side. He or she might likewise be obliged to go to meetings of experts with a perspective to narrowing issues still in question. Amid the case hearing, the expert not only just need to face interrogation all alone confirmation, however be available to prompt direction about shortcomings to be examined in that of the restricting side's expert (Embar-Seddon and Pass, 2009). At long last, the expert may be obliged to give further specialized backing ought to the case go to advance. Hence, it is apparent that an expert can have a few different parts to play in prosecution, that these parts will cover in time and that they may stretch out over the term of a case, from beginning to request (Shelton, 2011). Being an expert witness is not only an instance of composing reports it can include much more. Future impacts of expert witness on forensic science In the near future the major emphasis of experimental and legal professionals will be to guarantee that the individuals who give expert proof to the courts have integrity, quality and trustworthiness. To allude to the NAS report at the end of the day, it placed that the antagonistic methodology is not ideally equipped to the assignment of finding investigative truth and judges and legal advisors, comprehensively talking, need exploratory expertise so need to depend on experts. For all extensions of the legal calling, it is imperative that those experts who are dependent upon in court, meet the most astounding gauges. Thus, it can be stated that there is an immense requirement to keep on depending on experts whose proof is tried by investigation. The Council for Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) have decided to undertake these investigations in future giving the court a solitary perspective for the ability of legal experts (Wiese and Betts, 2010). The system had drawbacks, on the other hand, encompassing its intentional enlistment system and the avoidance of those certify through other channels. After the council has been shut down, the Forensic Science Society has looked to fill a piece of the hole by obtaining Royal Charter status and is presenting an arrangement of accreditation to set uniform models for individuals gaining contracted status. Irrespective of the course witness accreditation adopts, a court is reliant on the respectability of expert witnesses. In the event that there is any absence of respectability courts needs to take appropriate and stringent steps. Conclusion From the discussions done in the above section, it is clear that the roles and responsibilities of an expert witness are many and he or she is obliged to carry on with the roles and responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner and under legal bindings. Moreover, in context to forensic science, it has been found out that use of forensic science in courts is facing troublesome consequences because police now has the tendency to do most of the tests by itself to reduce the costs incurred in paying fees to forensic experts, the fees for whom has been increased by the new rules and regulations imposed by FSS after it has become the executive agency. Under such circumstances, the tests are losing efficiency and trustworthiness thereby adversely affecting the legal system of the nation. Presently there is no doubt in the fact that both expert witness and expert testimony are important aspects that UK courts have to rely upon and hence, major emphasis is being given on systems that are capable of ensuring that expert witnesses possess quality, integrity and trustworthiness. Taking in to consideration these facts, the federal courts have stated in Article VII of the federal rules of evidence that experts are allowed to testify their conclusions with regard to a case provided that the their assessments are scientifically efficient. In the process of making inferences, the experts are allowed to bank on the same type of evidence that people usually bank on in their professions no matter whether or not those evidences are inadmissible in the court. References Blau, T. (2000). The psychologist as expert witness. New York: Wiley. Blom-Cooper, L., Blake, C., Arnull, A., Barnard, C., Dougan, M. and Spaventa, E. (2007). The Court of Appeal. Hart Publishing. Daly, B. (1999). The role of the expert witness. Dublin: Inns Quay. Dorram, P. (1982). The expert witness. Washington, D.C.: Planners Press. Embar-Seddon, A. and Pass, A. (2009). Forensic science. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press. Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley. Hobbs, I. (1992). Role of the Expert Witness. Accountancy Books. Horne, R. and Mullen, J. (2008). The expert witness in construction. Malone, D. and Zwier, P. (2006). Effective expert testimony. [South Bend, IN]: National Institute for Trial Adocacy. PhlogaiteÃÅ'„s, S., Zwart, T. and Fraser, J. (2013). The European Court of Human Rights and its discontents. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd. Pyrek, K. (2007). Forensic science under siege. Amsterdam: Elsevier / Academic Press. Shelton, D. (2011). Forensic science in court. Lanham, Md.: Rowman Littlefield Publishers. Wall, W. (2009). Forensic science in court. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Wiese, C. and Betts, P. (2010). Years of persecution, years of extermination. London: Continuum. Winfield, R. (2003). The Expert medical witness. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press. Wrightsman, L. (1987). Psychology and the legal system. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.