Department of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, England, UK.
Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University, Newcastle, England, UK.
Forensic Sci Int. 2020 Mar;308:110110. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110110. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
In recent decades, forensic science evidence has come to play an increasingly significant role in criminal proceedings. However, the ability of non-scientists (lay-persons, including lawyers and judges) within criminal justice systems to recognise and resolve issues of validity and reliability relating to expert opinion evidence has not maintained pace with the need to do so. Despite international scrutiny from scientists, statisticians, governments and those involved in law reform, the parameters of a) different forensic disciplines and b) some case specific interpretations, remain elusive to some legal practitioners and judges. It is therefore essential that within the context of national, and increasingly international and transnational criminal investigations, forensic science experts convey the evidential value of the scientific findings in a manner that is understandable to, and useable by all. To assist, this paper first identifies the organisational structures necessary to scaffold and support the delivery of reliable expert opinion evidence. This is followed by a format for transparently reporting the reasoning and the scientific validity underpinning the expert's evidence within their report: a tripartite Scientific Validity Framework. This framework is comprised of (i) foundational validity, (ii) applied validity and (iii) the new concept of evaluative validity. Such a framework, because of its underlying scientific principles, is applicable to expert reports in any jurisdiction and is complementary to different national approaches. That is because utilising this framework could ensure that experts can, and do, demonstrate that their case-specific opinion is reliable and alert the legal profession to the expert's reasoning process and any limitations in the scientific validity underpinning the opinion.
近几十年来，法医学证据在刑事诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。然而，刑事司法系统中非科学家（包括律师和法官在内的外行）识别和解决与专家意见证据有关的有效性和可靠性问题的能力，并没有跟上需要解决的问题的步伐。尽管科学家、统计学家、政府和法律改革参与者对其进行了国际审查，但对于一些法律从业人员和法官来说，（a）不同的法医学科和（b）某些具体案件的解释的参数仍然难以捉摸。因此，在国家，并且越来越多地在国际和跨国刑事调查的背景下，法医学专家必须以一种所有相关人员都能理解和使用的方式来传达科学发现的证据价值。为此，本文首先确定了必要的组织结构，以支撑和支持可靠的专家意见证据的提供。其次，本文提出了一种报告推理和科学有效性的格式，为专家报告中的证据提供支持：一个三方科学有效性框架。该框架由（i）基础有效性、（ii）应用有效性和（iii）新的评估有效性概念组成。由于其基础科学原理，这种框架适用于任何法域的专家报告，并且与不同的国家方法相辅相成。这是因为利用这个框架可以确保专家能够证明他们的特定案件意见是可靠的，并提醒法律专业人员注意专家的推理过程以及意见所依据的科学有效性的任何限制。
