Evaluation of Expert Research Results Based on the Probabilistic Approach (on Published Foreign Papers)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.1.2023.04Keywords:
forensic science, expert conclusion; probability, veracity, expert conclusion uncertainty; Frye standard and Daubert standard; likelihood ratio; Bayes’ theorem.Abstract
The Research Paper Purpose is to analyze the genesis of procedural and scientific principles of modern foreign standards for evaluating expert research results; clarify uncertainty sources that result in ambiguous expert conclusions; substantiate the need to use the probabilistic (Bayesian) approach while formulation of forensic experts’ answers. To fulfil this goal, the following research methods have been chosen: historical and legal; systemic and structural; comparative legal; formal and legal. The procedural, epistemological and doctrinal factors complicating evaluation of the objectivity and veracity of the expert conclusion in domestic law enforcement practice are named. Evaluation standards of expert evidence at different times throughout the world have been analyzed (universal adoption of the Frye standard, substantiation and validation of the Daubert standard, prove beyond a reasonable doubt). It is emphasized that provision of probable conclusions by the forensic expert is due to a continuum of uncertainties, which source are peculiarities of the formation of crime traces and methods of collecting traces at the scene, the level of expertise development and methodologies of expert research, interpretation and evaluation of forensic examination results. To shape the expert’s conviction in research findings, a statistical Bayesian method of establishing the likelihood ratio is proposed, which enables to evaluate significance of versions proposed by the forensic expert and is the basis for the court to take a reasoned decision. The probabilistic approach is proposed to be applied both for evaluation of a random coincidence of features when identifying forensic examination objects, as well as in relation to possible errors in laboratory tests and interpretation of results drawn by a forensic expert.
References
Exonerations by Contributing Factor / The National Registry of Exonerations. URL: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFa ctorsByCrime.aspx.
Abramova, V. M. (2005). Ekspertni pomylky: sutnist, henezys, shliakhy podolannia : avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Almazrouei, M. A, Dror, I. E., Morgan, R. M. (2019). The Forensic Disclosure Model: What Should be Disclosed To, and By, Forensic Experts? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. Vol. 59. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.05.003.
Belkyn, R. S. (2001). Kurs krymynalystyky [Criminalistics Course] : ucheb. posob. dlia vuzov. Moskva [in Russian].
Berger, C. E. H., Buckleton, J., Champod, C., Evett, I. W., Jackson, G. (2011). Expressing Evaluative Opinions: A Position Statement. Science and Justice. Vol. 51. Is. 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.01.002.
Bozza, S., Taroni, F., Biedermann, A. (2022). Bayes Factors for Forensic Decision Analyses with R. Springer.
Champod, С., Evett, I. W. (2001). A Probabilistic Approach to Fingerprint Evidence. Journal of Forensic Identification. Vol. 51. Is. 2. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/285822580_A_probabilistic_ approach_to_fingerprint_evidence.
Cole, S. A. (2005). More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Print Identification. The Jour-nal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 95. Is. 3. URL: https://scholarlycommons.law. northwestern.edu/jclc/vol95/iss3/10.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993) / Justia U. S. Supreme Court. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/509/579/.
ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science. Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe (STEOFRAE). URL: https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/m1_guideline.pdf.
Faigman, D. L. (2008). Admissibility regimes «The Opinion Rule» and Other Oddities and Exceptions to Scientific Evidence, the Scientific Revolution, and Common Sense. Southwestern University Law Review. Vol. 36. Р. 701. URL: https://repository.uchastings. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2033&cont ext=faculty_scholarship.
Finkelstein, M. O., Fairley, W. B. (1970). A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 83. No. 3. URL: https://www. marcellodibello.com/mathtrial/resources/ FinkelsteinFairley1970.pdf.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923). Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Dec 3, 1923. URL: https://casetext.com/case/ frye-v-united-states-7.
Garrett, B. L. (2012). Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Harvard University Press.
Georgiou, N., Morgan, R. M., French, J. C. (2022). The Shifting Narrative of Uncertain-ty: a Case for the Coherent and Consistent Consideration of Uncertainty in Forensic Science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sci-ences. DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2022.2104370.
Godden, D. M., Walton, D. (2006). Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Cri-teria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris. Vol. 19. Is. 3. URL: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcon-tent.cgi?article=1003&context=crrarpub.
Gutheil, T. G., Bursztajn, H. (2003). Avoiding Ipse Dixit Mislabeling: Post-Daubert Approaches to Expert Clinical Opinions. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Vol. 31. No. 2. URL: https://citeseerx. ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pd f&doi=59696238b68d23de80a2348ee98b335 0d7f28051.
Haber, L., Haber, R. N. (2004). Error Rates for Human Latent Fingerprint Examiners. Au-tomatic Fingerprint Recognition Systems ; ed. N. Ratha, R. Bolle. Springer r-Verlag New York Inc. URL: https://link.springer. com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-21685-5_17.
Jurs, A. W. (2012). Balancing Legal Process with Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Assessment of Expert Witness Methodology in Five Nations, and Suggestions for Reform of Post-Daubert U. S. Reliability Determinations. Marquette Law Review. Vol. 95. Is. 4. URL: https://scholarship. law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=5134&context=mulr.
Koehler, J. J., Saks, M. J. (2010). Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted. Brooklyn Law Review. Vol. 75. Is. 4. URL: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw. edu/blr/vol75/iss4/9.
McCartney, C., Amoako, E. N. (2018). The UK Forensic Science Regulator: A Model for Forensic Science Regulation? Georgia State University Law Review. Vol. 34. Is. 4. URL: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/328019895_The_UK_ Forensic_Science_Regulator_A_Model_ For_Forensic_Science_Regulation_THE_ UK_FORENSIC_SCIENCE_REGULATOR_A_ MODE L _ FOR _ FOR E NSIC_S C I E NC E _ REGULATION.
Okoye, J., Oraegbunam, I. (2019). Daubert and Frye Models: Implications for Admissibility of Expert Testimony for Nigeria. International Review of Law and Jurisprudence. Vol. 1. No 3. URL: https:// nigerianjournalsonline.com/index.php/ IRLJ/article/view/278.
Popper, К. R. (2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery Basic. This ed. publ. in the Taylor & Francis e-Library. URL: http://philotextes. info/spip/IMG/pdf/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf.
Report to the President. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Executive Office of the President. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Sept 2016. URL: https://obamawhitehouse. archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_ report_final.pdf.
Roberts, P., Aitken, C. (2014). The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses. London. Royal Statistical Society. URL: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/318596438_The_Logic_of_ Forensic_Proof_-_Inferential_Reasoning_ in_Criminal_Evidence_and_Forensic_ Science.
Roux, C., Bucht, R., Crispino, F. et al. (2022). The Sydney Declaration — Revisiting the Essence of Forensic Science through its Fundamental Principles. Forensic Science International. Vol. 332. DOI: 10.1016/j. forsciint.2022.111182.
Rule 702 — Testimony by Expert Witnesses / Federal Rules of Evidence. Edition 2023. URL: https://www.rulesofevidence.org/ article-vii/rule-702.
Rybalskyi, O. V., Solovev, V. Y., Cherniavs-kyi, S. S., Zhuravel, V. V. (2019). Veroiatnost v sovremennoi krymynalystyke [Probability in modern criminalistics]. Kryminalistych-nyi visnyk. № 1 (31). DOI: 10.37025/1992-4437/2019-31-1-6 [in Russian].
Sangero, B. (2016). Safety from False Convic-tions. Jerusalem. URL: http://sangero.co.il/ wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SAFETY-San-gero-final-280716.pdf.
Sangero, В. (2018). Safety from Flawed Forensic Sciences Evidence. Georgia State Universi-ty Law Review. Vol. 34. Is. 4. URL: https:// readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=2943&context=gsulr.
Sangero, В., Halpert, М. (2007). Why a Convic-tion Should Not Be Based on a Single Piece of Evidence: A Proposal for Reform. Juri-metrics. Vol. 48. No. 1. URL: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/228296786.
Shcherbakovskyi, M. G. (2020). Sudebnaia praktyka otsenky veroiatnykh vyvodov eksperta [Court practice of assessment of probable expert’s conclusions]. Aktualni pytannia sudovoi ekspertolohii, kryminalistyky ta kryminalnoho protsesu : mat-ly II Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Kyiv, 19.11.2020). Kyiv. URL: https://m3rkxutm8pk3eqapl5ynjvb3g jps8uao.cdn-freehost.com.ua/wp-content/ uploads/2021/06/5fd09ad02772c.pdf [in Russian].
Shcherbakovskyi, M. G. (2021). Standarty dopustymosty rezultatov ekspertnykh yssledovanyi v sudoproyzvodstve SShA i Ukrainy: sravnytelnyi analyz [Standards of admissibility of the results of forensic re-search in the USA and Ukraine proceedings: a comparative analysis]. Kryminalistyka i sudova ekspertyza. Vyp. 66. DOI: 10.33994/ kndise.2021.66.05 [in Russian].
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2011). Pryznachennia ta provadzhennia sudovykh ekspertyz [Appointment and conduct of forensic examinations]: navch. posib. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Shcherbakovskyi, M., Stepaniuk, R., Kikin-chuk, V., Petrova, I., Hanzha, T. (2020). Assessment of the conclusions of molecular genetic examination in the investigation of crimes. Amazonia investiga. Vol. 9. Nо. 25. URL: https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index. php/amazonia/article/view/1097.
Standards for the Formulation of Evaluative Forensic Science Expert Opinion / Association of Forensic Science Providers. Science and Justice. 2009. Vol. 49. Is. 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004.
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC, 2009. DOI: 10.17226/12589.
Taroni, F., Biedermann, A. (2015). Uncertainty in Forensic Science: Experts, Probabilities and Bayes’ Theorem. Statistica Applicata — Italian Journal of Applied Statistics. Vol. 27. No. 2. URL: http://sa-ijas.stat.unipd.it/ sites/sa-ijas.stat.unipd.it/files/Taroni-Biedermann.pdf.
Thompson, W. C. (2006). Tarnish on the «Gold Standard»: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing. The Champion. Vol. 30. URL: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/287959814.
Thompson, W. C., Kaasa, S. O., Peterson, T. (2013). Do Jurors Give Appropriate Weight to Forensic Identification Evidence? Journal Empirical Legal Studies. Vol. 10. Is. 2. DOI: 10.1111/jels.12013.
Tribe, L. H . (1971). Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 84, No. 6. URL: https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/ dreyfus/tribe.pdf.
Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports / Office of Legal Policy. U. S. Department of Justice. 26 Sept 2022. URL: https:// www.justice.gov/olp/uniform-language-testimony-and-reports.
Ward, Т. (2015). An English Daubert? Law, Forensic Science and Epistemic Deference. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Daubert Special Is-sue. Vol. 15. DOI: 10.5840/jpsl20151513.
