skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 250699 Find in a Library
Title: Uncertainty Ahead - A Shift in How Federal Scientific Experts Can Testify
Series: NIJ Journal
Author(s): Danielle Weiss; Gerald LaPorte
Date Published: 2017
Page Count: 8
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
United States of America
Document: HTML|PDF
Type: Instructional Material; Issue Overview; Legislation/Policy Analysis; Report (Technical Assistance)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article discusses how state and local forensic scientists and attorneys will alter their testimonial practice under a new directive that instructs U.S. Justice Department forensic scientists working in federal laboratories and U.S. Attorneys to stop using the phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” when testifying.
Abstract: The phrase at issue has been used in courts throughout the nation for decades to signal that the expert’s testimony is based on sound scientific or technical analysis rather than conjecture. The rejection of this phrase stems from a concern that juries not be influenced by words that imply certainty when that level of assurance cannot be substantiated, regardless of the discipline. In addition, the phrase has never received a cross-disciplinary definition and continues to carry differing interpretations. It will be a difficult task to identify a single phrase that all forensic disciplines can use to distinguish between speculation and the relative degree of confidence that a scientist has in his/her findings and opinions. One likely approach will be that each forensic discipline will develop and define its own terminology, based on a formal standards-development process. The unique aspects of each discipline and the needs of those who will use this information will be taken into account. The available research has shown that confident testimony by an experienced forensic expert has a positive influence on juries. Conversely, the use of highly technical methods, validation studies, cross-examination, exculpatory evidence, concessions of error, explanations of the limitations of a methodology, and jury instructions had little overall impact on juror decision-making in the research setting. Informed by studies of juror comprehension, scientists must continue to develop and define terminology that accurately conveys both their opinions and the limitations of their methodology.
Main Term(s): Federal courts
Index Term(s): County courts; Expert witnesses; Forensic sciences; NIJ Resources; Probabilistic evidence; Scientific testimony; State courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=272868

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.