skip navigation


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: 236188 Find in a Library
Title: Forensic Identification Science Evidence Since Daubert: Part I-A Quantitative Analysis of the Exclusion of Forensic Identification Science Evidence
Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences  Volume:56  Issue:5  Dated:September 2011  Pages:1180-1184
Author(s): Mark Page, B.D.Sc., G.C.Ed.; Jane Taylor, B.D.S., B.Sc.Dent., M.D.Sc., Ph.D.; Matt Blenkin, B.D.Sc., M.Sc.Dent.
Date Published: September 2011
Page Count: 5
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article discusses the way scientific expert evidence was reviewed in courts across the United States.
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael transformed the way scientific expert evidence was reviewed in courts across the United States. To gauge the impact of these rulings on the admission of forensic identification evidence, the authors analyzed 548 judicial opinions from cases where admission of such evidence was challenged. Eighty-one cases (15 percent) involved exclusion or limitation of identification evidence, with 50 (65.7 percent) of these failing to meet the "reliability" threshold. This was largely because of a failure to demonstrate a sufficient scientific foundation for either the technique (27 cases) or the expert's conclusions (17 cases). The incidence of exclusion/limitation because of a lack of demonstrable reliability suggests that there is a continuing need for the forensic sciences to pursue research validating their underlying theories and techniques of identification to ensure their continued acceptance by the courts. (Published Abstract)
Main Term(s): Criminology
Index Term(s): Expert witnesses; Forensic sciences; Rules of evidence; Scientific testimony; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.