Reliability of identification methods and expert testimonies according to participants of criminal proceedings
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEChoose format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEReliability of identification methods and expert testimonies according to participants of criminal proceedings
Publication date: 29.12.2022
Problems of Forensic Sciences, 2022, 130-131, pp. 169 - 203
https://doi.org/10.4467/12307483PFS.22.010.16819Authors
Reliability of identification methods and expert testimonies according to participants of criminal proceedings
The reliability of evidence in a criminal trial is a multidimensional issue and relates to the assessment of the evidential value of a specific circumstance established in the case through activities performed by expert witness or authorities. The reliability (trustworthy) of the source of evidence and identification methods, performance of research, deduction and the context of other evidence seem to be one of the important implications for the evidential value.
Results of the survey of participants of the criminal trial (police officers, prosecutors and experts) and comparative group on the perception of various features of identification methods and selected aspects related to the status of a forensic expert is presented in the article. In the first part of the study, the identification methods were ranked in terms of their scientificity, reliability and willingness to convict on the basis of the method’s results. The research shows that the assessment of the method’s reliability is significantly correlated with the assessment of its scientificity. However, some exceptions to this relationship have been identified, indicating that the reliability of the method may also be the result of an assessment of its suitability and effectiveness. The second part of the research was focused on assessing the reliability of various expert opinions. The place of examinations carried out by an expert is important for the participants of the criminal trial. Opinions of forensic experts performed at specialist institutions were assessed as the most reliable.
1. Achrem, W. (2013). Opinia biegłego z zakresu badań genetycznych w świetle analizy rezultatów badania ankietowego. Moc dowodowa, wiarygodność i przydatność naukowego środka dowodowego do dowodzenia wybranych rodzajów przestępstw. Problemy Kryminalistyki, 282(4), 9–16.
2. Appleby, S. C., Kassin, S. M. (2016). When self-report trumps science: Effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 127–140.
3. Cambridge dictionary (2022). Reliability. Retrieved December 12th, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reliability
4. Chin, J. M., Ibaviosa, C. M. (2022). Beyond CSI: Calibrating public beliefs about the reliability of forensic science through openness and transparency. Science & Justice, 62, 272–283.
5. Dzierżanowska, J., Studzińska, J. (2015). Kryteria oceny dowodu z opinii biegłego w orzecznictwie sądów powszechnych i Sądu Najwyższego. Roczniki Nauk Prawnych, 25(2), 21–47.
6. Dzierżanowska, J., Studzińska, J. (2016). Biegli w postępowaniu sądowym cywilnym i karnym. Praktyczne omówienie regulacji z orzecznictwem. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
7. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 433–458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012899030937.
8. Googman-Delahunty, J., Hewson, L. L. (2009). Improving jury understanding and use of DNA expert evidence. Report to Criminology Research Council. Technical and background paper series, no. 37. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
9. Gruza, E., Goc, M., Moszczyński, J. (2011). Kryminalistyka – czyli rzecz o metodach śledczych. Warszawa: Łośgraf.
10. Gurgul, J. (2020). Sprzeciw wobec pomysłów metaopinii. Szlachectwo zobowiązuje. Prokuratura i Prawo, 12, 71–97.
11. Gustafsson, P. U., Lindholm, T., Jönsson, F. U. (2021). Judging the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies using retrieval effort cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(4), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3854.
12. Holmgren, J. (2005). DNA evidence and jury comprehension. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 38(3), 123–141.
13. Innocence Project (2022). The Causes of Wrongful Conviction. Retrieved October 14th, 2022 from https://innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction.
14. Kalinowski, S. (1994). Biegły i jego opinia, Warszawa: CLK KGP.
15. Kaplan, J., Ling, S., Cuellar, M. (2020). Public beliefs about the accuracy and importance of forensic evidence in the United States. Science & Justice, 60, 263–272.
16. Karczmarska, D. (2009). Sądowa ocena opinii biegłego w procesie karnym. Annales Univeritatis Mariae Curie -Skłodowska 2009/2010, 56/57(G), 49–62.
17. Konieczny, J. (2008). Wprowadzenie do problematyki identyfikacji kryminalistycznej. (In) J. Widacki (Ed.), Kryminalistyka (pp. 167–185). Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
18. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz, V., Wójcikiewicz, J. (2009). Sędziowie wobec dowodu naukowego. (In) J. K asprzak, B. Młodziejowski (Eds.), Kryminalistyka i inne nauki pomostowe w postępowaniu karnym (pp. 43–57). Szczecin: Print Group.
20. Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 14(1), 27–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27.
21. Ling, S., Kaplan, J., Berryessa, C. M. (2021). The importance of forensic evidence for decisions on criminal guilt. Science & Justice, 61, 142–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.11.004.
22. Lodge, C., Zloteanu, M. (2020). Jurors’ expectations and decision-making: revisiting the CSI effect. The North of England Bulletin, 2020(2), 19–30.
23. Magnussen, S., Wise, R. A., Raja, A. Q., Safer, M. A., Pawlenko, N., Stridbeck, U. (2008). What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 177–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701580099.
24. Moffa, M. S., Platania, J. (2008). From obsession to confession: A false confession paradigm in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 4(2), 228–242.
25. Moszczyński, J. (2011). Subiektywizm w badaniach kryminalistycznych. Przyczyny i zakres stosowania subiektywnych ocen w wybranych metodach identyfikacji człowieka. Olsztyn: UWM.
26. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.
27. Ribeiro, G., Tangen, J. M., McKimmie, B. M. (2019). Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 297, 138–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.034.
28. Schweitzer, K., Nuñez, N. (2018). What evidence matters to jurors? The prevalence and importance of different homicide trial evidence to mock jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(3), 437–451. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/13218719.2018.1437666.
29. Smith, R. L., Kannemeyer, M., Adams, E., Van Nguyen, V., Munshaw, R., Burr, W. S. (2020). Comparing jury focus and comprehension of expert evidence between adversarial and court-appointed models in Canadian criminal court context. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 53(2), 43–70. DOI: 10.1080/00085030.2020.1748284.
30. Stojer-Polańska, J. (2016). Kryminalistyka w mediach. Wpływ seriali kryminalnych na postępowanie karne. Poznań: Silva Rerum.
31. Widła, T. (1992). Ocena dowodu z opinii biegłego. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
32. Widła, T. (2017). Metodyka ekspertyzy. (In) M. Kała, D. Wilk, J. Wójcikiewicz (Eds.), Ekspertyza sądowa. Zagadnienia wybrane (pp. 29–45). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
33. Wilk, D. (2018). Nowoczesne metody fizykochemii kryminalistycznej w procesie karnym. Kraków: JAK Press. 34. Wilk, D. (2022). O metaopinii i swobodnej ocenie dowodów w polskim procesie karnym raz jeszcze. Polemika z dr. Józefem Gurgulem. Prokuratura i Prawo, 1, 5–27.
35. Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 427–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.993.
36. Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A. (2010). A comparison of what US judges and students know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1400–1422.
37. Wójcikiewicz, J. (2000). Scientific evidence in judicial proceedings. Kraków: Institute of Forensic Research Publisher.
38. Wójcikiewicz, J. (2009). Forensics and justice. Judicature on scientific evidence 1993–2008. Toruń: TNOiK Press.
39. Zadora, G., Martyna, A., Ramos, D., Aitken, C. (2014). Statistical analysis in forensic science. Evidential value of multivariate physicochemical data. Chichester: Wiley.
40. Zubańska, M. (2017). Kryminalistyczne badania fizykochemiczne – ekspertyza sensu largo, niekwestionowana, z definicji naukowa. Przegląd Policyjny, 3(127), 84–97.
Information: Problems of Forensic Sciences, 2022, 130-131, pp. 169 - 203
Article type: Original article
Titles:
Reliability of identification methods and expert testimonies according to participants of criminal proceedings
Reliability of identification methods and expert testimonies according to participants of criminal proceedings
Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków, Poland
Institute of Zoology and Biomedical Research, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland
Institute of Forensic Research, Kraków, Poland
Published at: 29.12.2022
Accepted at: 13.09.2022
Article status: Open
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Percentage share of authors:
Article corrections:
-Publication languages:
English, PolishView count: 590
Number of downloads: 454
Suggested citations: Vancouver