{"title":"Scientific Evidence in Europe -- Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of Arms","authors":"C. Champod, J. Vuille","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was commissioned by the European Committee on Crime Problems at the Council of Europe to describe and discuss the standards used to asses the admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in various member countries. After documenting cases in which faulty forensic evidence seems to have played a critical role, the authors describe the legal foundations of the issues of admissibility and assessment of the probative value in the field of scientific evidence, contrasting criminal justice systems of accusatorial and inquisitorial tradition and the various risks that they pose in terms of equality of arms. Special attention is given to communication issues between lawyers and scientific experts. The authors eventually investigate possible ways of improving the system. Among these mechanisms, emphasis is put on the adoption of a common terminology for expressing the weight of evidence. It is also proposed to adopt an harmonized interpretation framework among forensic experts rooted in good practices of logical inference.The foreword was authored by D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Commentary on Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22
Abstract
This study was commissioned by the European Committee on Crime Problems at the Council of Europe to describe and discuss the standards used to asses the admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in various member countries. After documenting cases in which faulty forensic evidence seems to have played a critical role, the authors describe the legal foundations of the issues of admissibility and assessment of the probative value in the field of scientific evidence, contrasting criminal justice systems of accusatorial and inquisitorial tradition and the various risks that they pose in terms of equality of arms. Special attention is given to communication issues between lawyers and scientific experts. The authors eventually investigate possible ways of improving the system. Among these mechanisms, emphasis is put on the adoption of a common terminology for expressing the weight of evidence. It is also proposed to adopt an harmonized interpretation framework among forensic experts rooted in good practices of logical inference.The foreword was authored by D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law.
这项研究是由欧洲委员会的欧洲犯罪问题委员会委托进行的,目的是描述和讨论各成员国用于评估科学证据的可采性和评估的标准。在记录了错误的法医证据似乎起了关键作用的案件之后,作者描述了可采性问题和科学证据领域的证据价值评估问题的法律基础,对比了控诉和讯问传统的刑事司法制度以及它们在武器平等方面构成的各种风险。特别关注律师和科学专家之间的沟通问题。作者最终研究了改进该系统的可能方法。在这些机制中,重点放在采用共同的术语来表示证据的重要性。还建议在法医专家之间采用基于逻辑推理良好做法的统一解释框架。前言由西顿霍尔大学法学院的D. Michael Risinger撰写。