Page Mark, Taylor Jane, Blenkin Matt
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
J Forensic Sci. 2011 Sep;56(5):1180-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01777.x. Epub 2011 Apr 19.
The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael transformed the way scientific expert evidence was reviewed in courts across the United States. To gauge the impact of these rulings on the admission of forensic identification evidence, the authors analyzed 548 judicial opinions from cases where admission of such evidence was challenged. Eighty-one cases (15%) involved exclusion or limitation of identification evidence, with 50 (65.7%) of these failing to meet the "reliability" threshold. This was largely because of a failure to demonstrate a sufficient scientific foundation for either the technique (27 cases) or the expert's conclusions (17 cases). The incidence of exclusion/limitation because of a lack of demonstrable reliability suggests that there is a continuing need for the forensic sciences to pursue research validating their underlying theories and techniques of identification to ensure their continued acceptance by the courts.
美国最高法院在“道伯特诉美锐尔·道 Pharmaceuticals 公司案”以及“锦湖轮胎有限公司诉卡迈克尔案”中的裁决改变了美国各地法院审查科学专家证据的方式。为评估这些裁决对法医鉴定证据采信的影响，作者分析了548份司法意见书，这些意见书来自此类证据采信受到质疑的案件。81起案件（15%）涉及鉴定证据的排除或限制，其中50起（65.7%）未达到“可靠性”门槛。这主要是因为未能为该技术（27起案件）或专家结论（17起案件）证明有足够的科学依据。因缺乏可证明的可靠性而导致排除/限制的发生率表明，法医学持续需要开展研究，验证其基础鉴定理论和技术，以确保证据继续被法院采信。
