Scientific Evidence in Europe -- Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of Arms

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.

Automatic Comparison and Evaluation of Impressions Left by a Firearm on Fired Cartridge Cases

“…• Leaving aside cases where the material is unsuitable or the examination leads to inconclusive statements, firearm examiners tend often to express their conclusions in categorical terms (individualization or exclusion). The authors agree with the statement stated in the study by Champod et al (10): "there was also a call to refrain from testifying to absolute scientific conclusions often based on the vague concept of individualization or uniqueness, in favor of more modest conclusions recognizing the sometimes imperfect performances measured in these disciplines." Firearm examiners following the AFTE Theory of Identification (1) may state that identifications are made to a "practical certainty", but almost no study has systematically investigated the magnitude of the residual uncertainty associated with such a statement.…”

Weakening Forensic Science in Spain: From Expert Evidence to Documentary Evidence*

“…On June 4, 2010, the current chairman of the ENFSI Board sent a letter to the head of the Criminal Law Division of the Directorate General of Human Rights & Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe. The letter endorsed the report titled “Scientific evidence in Europe—Admissibility, Appraisal and Equality of Arms,” written by Christophe Champod and Joëlle Vuille (24), both of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland). It underlined, on behalf of the ENFSI Board, the parallelism between the strategic objectives of ENFSI and the recommendations given in that document, specifically “the importance of the scientific interpretation of results.”…”

“…Despite being aware of this scientific problem since the very first conference of the European Academy of Forensic Sciences (1997-Switzerland), only a few of those working groups have reached a consensus on how to interpret evidence in court. As stated in Part 2, Clark (Sally) (15), ''those experts are trying to solve problems outside their fields of expertise'' (p. 12 (24), both of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland). It underlined, on behalf of the EN-FSI Board, the parallelism between the strategic objectives of ENFSI and the recommendations given in that document, specifically ''the importance of the scientific interpretation of results.…”

“…Art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution establishes some guarantees called constitutional rights including, as is pertinent to the case under study, actual legal guardianship, to be judged in due process of law, to use applicable means of proof for self-defense, and prohibition of defenselessness. However, the SCC, which is the interpreter of the Spanish Constitution, has warned that:…”

“…According to Art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution, only judges and courts can ''examine the lawfulness and relevance of proof'' (SCC case law, see, e.g., sentence number 60 ⁄ 2007, March 16, 2007). Therefore, though a party may request the presence of a scientific expert before the court to give evidence, in case of being considered unnecessary by that court, that presence will not take place and this fact will not be unconstitutional.…”