Landmark Judgments On Forensic Science Evidence
1. Frye v. United States (1923)
Facts: The case involved the admissibility of a systolic blood pressure deception test (an early lie detector test) in a criminal trial.
Legal Issue: Should scientific evidence be admissible based on whether the method used is generally accepted by experts in the relevant field?
Judgment: The court established what is now known as the “Frye Standard”, holding that scientific evidence is admissible only if the technique or principle is sufficiently established and generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Significance: This case set the standard for admissibility of forensic evidence in many jurisdictions, emphasizing the reliability and general acceptance of scientific methods.
2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)
Facts: The case dealt with the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in a civil case involving alleged birth defects caused by a drug.
Legal Issue: What criteria should courts use to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence?
Judgment: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Frye test and instead provided a more flexible standard, known as the Daubert Standard, requiring judges to act as "gatekeepers" and consider factors such as:
Whether the theory or technique can be tested,
Whether it has been peer-reviewed,
Known error rates,
Standards controlling the technique,
General acceptance, though not mandatory.
Significance: Daubert shifted the focus from general acceptance to a broader reliability analysis, greatly influencing the evaluation of forensic evidence in courts.
3. State of Punjab v. Surinder Singh (2009) – Indian Supreme Court
Facts: The case involved the admissibility of DNA evidence in a murder trial.
Legal Issue: Can DNA profiling be accepted as reliable forensic evidence in Indian courts?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that DNA evidence is admissible and reliable if it follows proper scientific procedures and chain of custody is maintained. The Court also emphasized the need for expert testimony to explain DNA results to the court.
Significance: This was a landmark judgment in India, recognizing the scientific validity of DNA evidence and setting guidelines for its use.
4. R v. Mohan (1994) – Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: The case dealt with the admissibility of expert testimony, including forensic evidence, in a criminal trial.
Legal Issue: What criteria should be applied to admit expert forensic evidence?
Judgment: The Court established four criteria for admissibility:
Relevance to an issue in the case,
Necessity in assisting the trier of fact,
Absence of any exclusionary rule,
A properly qualified expert.
Significance: This judgment refined the test for admitting forensic evidence, balancing probative value with fairness to the accused.
5. R v. Doheny and Adams (1997) – UK Court of Appeal
Facts: The case involved challenges to DNA evidence in a criminal trial.
Legal Issue: Should DNA evidence be treated as conclusive proof, or should the court evaluate its reliability and context?
Judgment: The Court held that DNA evidence is powerful but not infallible and should be considered along with all other evidence. Courts should assess the quality of the forensic procedures and the statistical significance of DNA matches.
Significance: This case highlighted the importance of careful judicial scrutiny of forensic evidence, preventing blind reliance on scientific tests.
Summary:
Frye (1923): Scientific evidence must be generally accepted to be admissible.
Daubert (1993): Courts act as gatekeepers, assessing reliability with flexible criteria.
State of Punjab v. Surinder Singh (2009): DNA evidence admissible if proper procedure followed.
R v. Mohan (1994): Expert forensic evidence must be relevant, necessary, and from qualified experts.
R v. Doheny (1997): DNA evidence is strong but not conclusive; must be carefully evaluated.
These cases collectively shape how forensic science evidence is introduced and assessed in courts, emphasizing reliability, proper procedure, and judicial scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
0 comments