1
From Ana: needs a titleDiagram: Crime to Court Booklet 2.2 [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] (use pp 7).
Watch this short video and explanation of the layout of a courtroom. [After video, add text]:
Video 1: Courtroom videoThis is the sort of courtroom in which Dave’s case would be heard.
In our case, the court would want to reach a final judgment of whether the suspect (Mike) is guilty or innocent of the alleged crime. To be able to achieve this, the court will be interested to know the involvement of the suspect in the crime. During the trial, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who must, based on relevant evidence gathered in the investigation of the case, including eyewitnesses, professional witnesses (the police) and expert witnesses (the forensic scientists), prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime alleged. Conversely, the defence’s role is to cast doubt on the prosecution’s allegation and argue that the suspect innocent did not commit the alleged crime. The forensic science evidence (DNA and digital evidence) in this case will be crucial in understanding the involvement (or not) of the suspect in this case. Expert witnesses, in this case forensic scientists with expertise in the areas of DNA and digital evidence, can explain how these pieces of evidence relate to the case.
In this case, the expert witnesses are called by the prosecution, which is typical (Leonetti, 2024), though experts could be called by the defence or the court itself. The experts present DNA and digital forensic evidence, not for the benefit of the party that commissioned them but to inform the court. The expert's main duty is to help the court by interpreting the scientific findings and evaluating these findings by offering opinions as to their meaning within the case context. The opinions will be presented in the form of a written report, oral testimony, or both, by the forensic scientist who undertook the analysis and authored the report.
Activity 1
On a scale of 1–5, how easy or difficult do you think it would be for the expert witness to remain impartial and not be influenced by the party that commissioned them in court?
Answer
Research shows that forensic experts are not immune to bias. Yet, it is rare that they would acknowledge their own biases or even fancifully think that they can overcome them with their willpower (Kukucka, et al., 2017). This is changing as this is gaining more attention though it is questionable whether simply reminding experts of their duty to be objective and impartial might be enough to address expert biases.
The prosecution will begin questioning the expert during what is known as examination in chief. Afterwards, the defence will have the same opportunity to ask the expert further questions based on their evidence and answers during examination in chief, during what is known as cross-examination. These questions oppose each other as they are used to address the partisan objectives of the prosecution or defence. During testimony, experts must respond directly to the questions asked and remain impartial. Further, they must communicate their scientific findings, staying within the bounds of their expertise. The evidence must be relevant and help the court answer specific questions about the case. The trustworthiness of the expert and their evidence, whether in written form or spoken testimony, will depend on:
- accuracy
- scientific underpinning and robustness of their analysis
- clarity, including explaining complex scientific techniques in lay persons terms
- transparency
- completeness
- lack of ambiguity
- impartiality
- suitability for its intended purpose (ISO 21043 Part 5).