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: 220976 Find in a Library
Title: Canada's Use of Expert Witnesses and Scientific Evidence Admissibility
Author(s): Jeff Chesen
Date Published: July 2006
Page Count: 21
Sponsoring Agency: National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law
Gulfport, FL 33707
Document: Doc
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Document
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): Courts; Expert witnesses; Forensic sciences
Index Term(s): Canada; Evidence; Scientific testimony
Note: Downloaded December 20, 2007
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://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 website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.