The book is a comprehensive narration of the use of expertise in international criminal trials offering reflection on standards concerning the quality and presentation of expert evidence. It analyzes and critiques the rules governing expert evidence in international criminal trials and the strategies employed by counsel and courts relying upon expert evidence and challenges that courts face determining its reliability. In particular, the author considers how the procedural and evidentiary architecture of international criminal courts and tribunals influences the courts’ ability to meaningfully incorporate expert evidence into the rational fact-finding process. The book provides analysis of the unique properties of expert evidence as compared with other forms of evidence and the challenges that these properties present for fact-finding in international criminal trials. It draws conclusions about the extent to which particularized evidentiary rules for expert evidence in international criminal trials is wanting. Based on comparative analyses of relevant national practices, the book proposes procedural improvements to address some of the challenges associated with the use of expertise in international criminal trials.

This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Currently, too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence, as confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Following consultation on a discussion paper (LCCP 190, 2009, ISDBN 9780118404655) the Commission recommends that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test for expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The test would not need to be applied routinely or unnecessarily, but it would be applied in appropriate cases and it would result in the exclusion of unreliable expert opinion evidence. Under the test, expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable to go before a jury. The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test and also provides the guidance judges would need when applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert's opinion evidence might be unreliable. The Bill also codifies (with slight modifications) the uncontroversial aspects of the present law, so that all the admissibility requirements for expert evidence would be set out in a single Act of Parliament and carry equal authority.

As an increasing range of expert evidence becomes available to it, the criminal justice system must answer a series of challenging questions: should experts be permitted to give evidence on the credibility of witnesses? How should statistical evidence be presented to juries? What relevancedoes syndrome evidence have to questions of criminal responsibility? In `Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice', Mike Redmayne explores these issues. His exposition utilizes work in a number of disciplines, and draws comparisons with the law and procedure in several different jurisdictions. Whiledeveloping a general overview of the use of scientific evidence in the criminal process, Redmayne makes use of detailed examinations of particular issues, such as battered women syndrome, fingerprinting, and eyewitness expertise. Through an analysis of expert evidence, he also invites reflection ona series of wider issues, among them the function of exclusionary rules and the nature of case construction.

Forensic science evidence and expert witness testimony play an increasingly prominent role in modern criminal proceedings. Science produces powerful evidence of criminal offending, but has also courted controversy and sometimes contributed towards miscarriages of justice. The twenty-six articles and essays reproduced in this volume explore the theoretical foundations of modern scientific proof and critically consider the practical issues to which expert evidence gives rise in contemporary criminal trials. The essays are prefaced by a substantial new introduction which provides an overview and incisive commentary contextualising the key debates. The volume begins by placingforensic science in interdisciplinary focus, with contributions from historical, sociological, Science and Technology Studies (STS), philosophical and jurisprudential perspectives. This is followed by closer examination of the role of forensic science and other expert evidence in criminal proceedings, exposing enduring tensions and addressing recent controversies in the relationship between science and criminal law. A third set of contributions considers the practical challenges of interpreting and communicating forensic science evidence. This perennial battle continues to be fought at the intersection between the logic of scientific inference and the psychology of the fact-finder‘scommon sense reasoning. Finally, the volume‘s fourth group of essays evaluates the (limited) success of existing procedural reforms aimed at improving the reception of expert testimony in criminal adjudication, and considers future prospects for institutional renewal - with a keen eye to comparative law models and experiences, success stories and cautionary tales.

Contains all the principles and knowledge needed to expose bogus experts and junk science and to reduce inflated expert evidence to its proper valuation.

Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Expert Evidence—favored with an Honorable Mention in Law & Legal Studies at the Association of American Publishers' 2015 PROSE Awards—provides a clear and intuitive discussion of the legal presentation of expert testimony. The book delves into the effects, processes, and battles that occur in the presentation of opinion and scientific evidence by court-accepted forensic experts. It provides a timely review of the United States Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) regarding expert testimony, and includes a multi-disciplinary look at the strengths and weaknesses in forensic science courtroom testimony. The statutes and the effects of judicial uses (or non-use) of the FRE, Daubert, Kumho, and the 2009 NAS Report on Forensic Science are also included. The presentation expands to study case law, legal opinions, and studies on the reliability and pitfalls of forensic expertise in the US court system. This book is an essential reference for anyone preparing to give expert testimony of forensic evidence. - Honorable Mention in the 2015 PROSE Awards in Law & Legal Studies from the Association of American Publishers - A multi-disciplinary forensic reference examining the strengths and weaknesses of forensic science in courtroom testimony - Focuses on forensic testimony and judicial decisions in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence, case interpretations, and the NAS report findings - Case studies, some from the Innocence Project, assist the reader in distinguishing good testimony from bad

Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice provides an overview of the procedure and practice concerning the admission and evaluation of evidence before the international criminal tribunals. The book is both descriptive and critical and its emphasis is on day-to-day practice, drawing on the experience of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone Tribunals. This book is an attempt to define and explain the core principles and rules that have developed at those ad hoc Tribunals; the rationale and origin of those rules; and to assess the suitability of those rules in the particular context of the International Criminal Court which is still at its early stages. The ICC differs in structure from the ad hoc Tribunals and approaches the legal issues it has to resolve differently from its predecessors. The ICC is however confronted with many of the same questions. The book examines the differences between the ad hoc Tribunals and the ICC and seeks to offer insights as to how and in which circumstances the principles established over years of practice at the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL may serve as guidance to the ICC practitioners of today and the future. The contributors represent a cross-section of the practicing international criminal bar, drawn from the ranks of the Bench, the Prosecution and the Defence and bringing with them different legal domestic cultures. Their mixed background underlines the recurring theme in this book which is the manner in which a legal culture has gradually taken shape in the international Tribunals, drawing on the various traditions and experiences of its participants.