Peer-Reviewed Forensic Consultation: Safeguarding Expert Testimony and Protecting the Uninformed Court

Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility

“…As such, vetting forensic expert witnesses may be limited to the direct and cross-examination of opposing witnesses, as opposed to more thorough witness preparation (Welner et al, 2012). According to Welner et al (2012), "limiting corruption and conscious expert witness subterfuge and its devastating impact on a case is not a responsibility actively taken on by courts" (citing Wettstein, 2005, p. 2). As improper forensic expert testimony continues in the courtroom, the potential for wrongful convictions persists (Innocence Project, 2001).…”

“…Because the points presented to the court may be less often documented with softer sciences, Welner et al (2012) argued this may allow expert witnesses to exploit the court's lack of social scientific expertise. Accordingly, trial attorneys who have witnessed this sort of "frivolous testimony" may be more likely to regard expert witnesses with cynicism (Welner et al, 2012, p. 3).…”

“…Furthermore, it is sometimes the case that attorneys who are invested in their case prioritize the obtainment of a win at trial as opposed to the regulation of expert testimony (Welner, Mastellon, Stewart, Weinert, & Stratton, 2012). As such, vetting forensic expert witnesses may be limited to the direct and cross-examination of opposing witnesses, as opposed to more thorough witness preparation (Welner et al, 2012).…”

“…Furthermore, it is sometimes the case that attorneys who are invested in their case prioritize the obtainment of a win at trial as opposed to the regulation of expert testimony (Welner, Mastellon, Stewart, Weinert, & Stratton, 2012). As such, vetting forensic expert witnesses may be limited to the direct and cross-examination of opposing witnesses, as opposed to more thorough witness preparation (Welner et al, 2012). According to Welner et al (2012), "limiting corruption and conscious expert witness subterfuge and its devastating impact on a case is not a responsibility actively taken on by courts" (citing Wettstein, 2005, p. 2).…”

Peer‐Reviewed Forensic Consultation in Practice: Multidisciplinary Oversight in Common Expertise

“…Prospective peer review disciplines the forensic consultation before mistakes happen . The oversight of peer reviewers who can interact with a primary examiner as knowledgeable, objective, and experienced academic and professional colleagues identifies blind spots of inadequate facts, inadequate knowledge, bias, and other contaminants before they advance far enough to seriously limit the validity of an exam.…”