skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 220976     Find in a Library
Title: Canada's Use of Expert Witnesses and Scientific Evidence Admissibility
Author(s): Jeff Chesen
Date Published: 07/2006
Page Count: 21
Document: Other 
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper examines the use of expert witnesses in Canada, and the development of scientific evidence admissibility in the Canadian courts.
Abstract: Canadian courts have determined that evidence and testimony should be examined on a case-by-case basis. This threshold was set because of the inherent danger that expert testimonial evidence could be misused to distort the fact-finding process. Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand and submitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, expert testimonial evidence is likely to be accepted by a jury as being virtually infallible and as having more weight than it deserves. Canadian courts, like their American counterparts, have been enthusiastic in their acceptance of expert testimony in most scientific areas. A series of cases have set forth the new parameters for admission of expert evidence. The seminal Canadian case, R. v. Mohan established a similar ruling to that in the American case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., that expert evidence must be based in science. This has led to the admissibility of DNA evidence in Canada, and the recent exoneration of Gregory Parsons, David Milgaard, and Guy Paul Morin, all of whom of who were wrongly convicted for crimes they did not commit. The cases shared many common traits: each was erroneously convicted of heinous crimes and spent time in prison; in each case, the individuals maintained their innocence; and for each of them, DNA evidence overwhelmingly cleared their names. Since then, some parameters and guidelines for expert testimony have been codified. The admissibility of expert witnesses has been addressed in amendments and additions to the Alberta Rules of Court. The new rules add many more detailed requirements to be satisfied before the court will receive expert testimonial evidence. They also encourage the parties to an action to agree to the uncontested admission of all or part of the expert evidence, with strict sanctions for unreasonable objections. References
Main Term(s): Expert witnesses ; Forensics/Forensic Sciences ; Courts
Index Term(s): Evidence ; Scientific testimony ; Canada
Note: Downloaded December 20, 2007
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242821

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.