TL;DR: Komar and Buikstra as discussed by the authors discuss the role of forensic anthropologists in medical and forensic investigations of death and their role in the development of forensic profiles and postmortem examinations.
Abstract: F anthropology plays a vital role in medicolegal investigations of death. Today, forensic anthropologists are intimately involved in many aspects of these investigations; they may participate in search and recovery efforts, develop a biological profile, identify and document trauma, determine postmortem interval, and offer expert witness courtroom testimony. However, few forensic anthropology textbooks include substantial discussions of our medicolegal and judicial systems. Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Practice, by Debra A. Komar and Jane E. Buikstra, not only examines current forensic anthropology from a theoretical perspective, but it also includes an introduction to elements of our legal system. Further, the text integrates these important concepts with bioanthropological theories and methods. Komar and Buikstra begin with an introductory chapter that traces the history of forensic anthropology in the United States. The careers of several founding members of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology are recognized for their contribution to advancing the profession. We are reminded that the field has evolved through the years from biological anthropologists doing forensic anthropology to modern students, who need training in both the medical and physical sciences, as well as traditional foundations in biological anthropology. In Chapters Two and Three, the authors introduce the reader to the medicolegal and judicial systems respectively. They present the medicolegal system with interesting discussions of important topics such as jurisdiction, death investigations, cause and manner of death, elements of a crime (actus reus and mens rea), and postmortem examinations. The chapter on the judicial system begins with the different classifications and interpretations of evidence, followed by an overview. Key components of this chapter include the rules governing expert witness testimony and scientific evidence in the courtroom. The authors also review the United States Supreme Court landmark decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 1993, which established more stringent criteria that federal judges must follow regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courtrooms. The authors note that in the Daubert decision, the Supreme Court modified the “Frye test”, removing the general acceptability criterion formerly required. In light of the Daubert ruling, the authors demonstrate the need for anthropologists to refine techniques and continue to develop biological profiling methods that will meet the rigorous Daubert standards. Anthropology is not alone among the forensic sciences that seek to refine methods and techniques. For example, forensic odontology has recently come under scrutiny in cases where defendants have been wrongfully convicted based on bite mark evidence (Saks and Koehler 2005). Additionally, Saks and Koehler also remark upon 86 DNA exoneration cases and note that 63% of these wrongful convictions are attributed to forensic science testing errors. Chapter Four takes a comprehensive look at the role of forensic anthropologists during death investigations. The authors note that “the participation of forensic anthropologists can be invaluable to the proper handling of the death scene” (p. 65). To this end, the chapter includes discussions of identifying remains of medicolegal and nonmedicolegal significance, jurisdiction issues, search strategies, and proper handling of evidence. Readers may find the detailed treatment of differentiating human from nonhuman material particularly useful. The following two chapters deal with developing a biological profile, and pathology and trauma. A detailed review of sex and age estimation for both juvenile and adult skeletal remains is provided, as well as an assessment of the estimation of ancestry and stature. A welcome discussion on scientific testing and the error rates of different methods is highlighted throughout their ‘reference’ packed discussion. In their critical review of biological profile development, Komar and Buikstra discuss the various estimation methods; they note that more recent techniques may need testing on additional skeletal samples to survive potential challenges under the Daubert ruling. We also are reminded that in forensic science, flawed methods may result in the false imprisonment of innocent persons, therefore an emphasis is placed on developing and refining techniques that improve both the accuracy and reliability of biological profile estimates. Students will find that the descriptions and discussions of the different categories of both pathology and trauma assessments are beneficial for understanding postmortem examinations. One also may find that the reviews of blunt and sharp force trauma, gunshot wounds, and fracture terminology are particularly useful. Komar and Buikstra continue their remarkable book with a chapter focusing on forensic taphonomy. They begin with an introduction and an outline of the goals of forensic taphonomy which includes time since death estimation, mechanisms of bone modification, and reconstructing perimortem events. The reader is drawn to the case studies that
TL;DR: Although most judges agreed that a distinction could be made between “scientific” and “technical or otherwise specialized” knowledge, the ability to apply the Daubert guidelines appeared to have little bearing on whether specific types of expert evidence were designated as “science” or “nonscience.”
Abstract: Drawing on the responses provided by a survey of state court judges (N = 400), empirical evidence is presented with respect to judges' opinions about the Daubert criteria, their utility as decision-making guidelines, the level to which judges understand their scientific meaning, and how they might apply them when evaluating the admissibility of expert evidence. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of state court judges. Part I of the survey was a structured telephone interview (response rate of 71%) and in Part II, respondents had an option of completing the survey by telephone or receiving a questionnaire in the mail (response rate of 81%). Survey results demonstrate that judges overwhelmingly support the "gatekeeping" role as defined by Daubert, irrespective of the admissibility standard followed in their state. However, many of the judges surveyed lacked the scientific literacy seemingly necessitated by Daubert. Judges had the most difficulty operationalizing falsifiability and error rate, with only 5% of the respondents demonstrating a clear understanding of falsifiability and only 4% demonstrating a clear understanding of error rate. Although there was little consensus about the relative importance of the guidelines, judges attributed more weight to general acceptance as an admissibility criterion. Although most judges agreed that a distinction could be made between "scientific" and "technical or otherwise specialized" knowledge, the ability to apply the Daubert guidelines appeared to have little bearing on whether specific types of expert evidence were designated as "science" or "nonscience." Moreover, judges' "bench philosophy of science" seemed to reflect the rhetoric, rather than the substance, of Daubert. Implications of these results for the evolving relationship between science and law and the ongoing debates about Frye, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho are discussed.
Abstract: The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition, assists judges in managing cases involving complex scientific and technical evidence by describing the basic tenets of key scientific fields from which legal evidence is typically derived and by providing examples of cases in which that evidence has been used. First published in 1994 by the Federal Judicial Center, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence has been relied upon in the legal and academic communities and is often cited by various courts and others. Judges faced with disputes over the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence refer to the manual to help them better understand and evaluate the relevance, reliability and usefulness of the evidence being proffered. The manual is not intended to tell judges what is good science and what is not. Instead, it serves to help judges identify issues on which experts are likely to differ and to guide the inquiry of the court in seeking an informed resolution of the conflict. The core of the manual consists of a series of chapters (reference guides) on various scientific topics, each authored by an expert in that field. The topics have been chosen by an oversight committee because of their complexity and frequency in litigation. Each chapter is intended to provide a general overview of the topic in lay terms, identifying issues that will be useful to judges and others in the legal profession. They are written for a non-technical audience and are not intended as exhaustive presentations of the topic. Rather, the chapters seek to provide judges with the basic information in an area of science, to allow them to have an informed conversation with the experts and attorneys.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the effect of Daubert v. United States on expert admissibility in criminal cases and found that there is a greater reliance on the 4-Daubert criteria when determining the admissible evidence of a scientific expert.
Abstract: Appellate opinions were evaluated on variables related to expert admissibility to assess the effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in criminal cases. Analysis reveals changes in appellate courts’ consideration of Frye v. United States, the 4 Daubert criteria, and several Federal Rules of Evidence. The importance of Frye and the general acceptance criterion decreased over time, and the importance of the Daubert criteria increased over time. However, these changes were not consistent for all types of testimony. Overall, there is greater reliance on Daubert when determining the admissibility of a scientific expert. However, only criteria related to the Federal Rules of Evidence are reliably related to admissibility decisions. Details of appellate court application of the 4 Daubert criteria, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and other related factors are discussed.