The admissibility of offender profiling in courtroom: A review of legal issues and court opinions

Clothes Don’t Maketh the Man Nor a Criminal Profiler an Expert Witness

“…Second, the measurements specifically pertained to functional tasks conceived as Crime Scene Analysis and thus the one aspect of the profiling technique which feasibly possessed sufficient probative basis to justify admission. Third, the research demonstrated proficiency in this task and thus lent some support to the legal concept of “reliability” (Bosco et al, 2010; Myer, 2007). Thus, Kocsis and Palermo (2016) identified the previously overlooked existence of material which potentially creates a pathway for the admissibility of “ Crime Scene Analysis ” congruent with the doctrines of Daubert and subsequent decisions of Fortin I & II .…”

“…Many of these concepts also prevailed in the United States, 2 but evaluation of the admissibility of criminal profiling in this particular domain was also guided by the seminal legal doctrines expounded in Frye v. United States, General Electric Company v. Joiner , and most notably Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Bosco et al, 2010; Ebiskike, 2008; Myer, 2007). As a consequence, in some courts in the United States, tendered evidence of a criminal profiling nature initially enjoyed a limited degree of success in gaining admission primarily due to its evaluation via the legal standard of “ General Acceptance ” (e.g., Pennell v. State; United States v. Meeks , 1992).…”

“…That is, the Fortin decisions ostensibly curtailed further admission under the guise of “specialized knowledge” and reinforced the need for adherence to the doctrines articulated in Daubert . In addition, the Fortin decisions highlighted a paucity in scientific research attesting to the merits (i.e., validity) of criminal profiling which is incumbent to establishing its admissibility 5 (Bosco et al, 2010; Myer, 2007).…”

The Effects of Coding Bias on Estimates of Behavioural Similarity in Crime Linking Research of Homicides

“…Bosco et al . 's () recommendation is to increase the reliability of forensic research to add to the chance of expert testimony being admitted in the courts. The more specific recommendation of Wilkinson () is for researchers to describe the specific methods used to deal with experimenter bias, especially if the researchers have gathered their data themselves.…”

“…The Daubert decision, along with a few subsequent rulings, brought about a substantial amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence 702, which sets the standard for the admission of testimony by expert witnesses in federal courts in the US (FRE 702, ). Bosco, Zappalà, and Santtila () reviewed court cases where expert testimony in the field of linkage analysis had been given and concluded that the most common reason for excluding expert testimony in these cases was the lack of demonstrable reliability of the methods used. In one particular ruling where the experts' testimony had been excluded, the court noted that the expert had ignored the many differences between the two cases, concentrated on the similarities, and thus overestimated them.…”