Imwinkelried E J
School of Law, University of California, Davis.
Med Law. 1992;11(3-4):229-37.
The testimony of most expert witnesses is reducible to a syllogism: The expert derives a relevant opinion (the conclusion) by applying a general theory or technique (the major premise) to the specific facts of the case (the minor premise). Legal commentators have tended to focus on the expert's major premise to the neglect of the minor premise. Thus, legal analysts have devoted little attention to the question of the forensic expert's use of proper test protocol. This neglect can result in the admission of erroneous scientific testimony. The neglect also represents a missed opportunity--the legal system's opportunity to give the forensic community additional incentive scrupulously to follow correct test procedures.
专家通过将一般理论或技术（大前提）应用于案件的具体事实（小前提）得出相关意见（结论）。法律评论家往往将重点放在专家的大前提上，而忽略了小前提。因此，法律分析人士很少关注法医专家使用适当测试规程的问题。这种忽视可能导致错误的科学证词被采纳。这种忽视也意味着错失了一个机会——法律系统给予法医界额外激励以严格遵循正确测试程序的机会。
