Development of European standards for evaluative reporting in forensic science
| Author | Sheila Willis,Christophe Champod,Alex Biedermann |
| Published date | 01 January 2017 |
| Date | 01 January 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712716674796 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Development of European
standards for evaluative
reporting in forensic science:
The gap between intentions
and perceptions
Alex Biedermann
School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Christophe Champod
School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Sheila Willis
Forensic Science Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Criminal justice authorities of EU countries currently engage in dialogue and action to build a
common area of justice and to help increase the mutual trust in judicial systems across Europe.
This includes, for example, the strengthening of procedural safeguards for citizens in criminal
proceedings by promoting principles such as equality of arms. Improving the smooth func-
tioning of judicial processes is also pursued by works of expert working groups in the field of
forensic science, such as the working parties under the auspices of the European Network of
Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). This network aims to share knowledge, exchange
experiences and come to mutual agreements in matters concerning forensic science practice,
among them the interpretation of results of forensic examinations. For example, through its
Monopoly Programmes (financially supported by the European Commission), ENFSI has fun-
ded a series of projects that come under the general theme ‘Strengthening the Evaluation of
Forensic Results across Europe’. Although these initiatives reflect a strong commitment to
mutual understanding on general principles of forensic interpretation, the development of
standards for evaluation and reporting, including roadmaps for implementation within the
ENFSI community, are fraught with conceptual and practical hurdles. In particular, experience
through consultations with forensic science practitioners shows that there is a considerable
gap between the intentions of a harmonised view on principles of forensic interpretation and
Corresponding author:
Alex Biedermann, School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Litigation Law Unit, Law School, University of
Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia (Visiting Researcher).
E-mail: alex.biedermann@unil.ch
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2017, Vol. 21(1-2) 14–29
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365712716674796
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
the way in which works towards such common understanding are perceived in the community.
In this paper, we will review and discuss several recurrently raised concerns. We acknowledge
practical constraints such as limited resources for training and education, but we shall also
argue that addressing topics in forensic interpretation now is of vital importance because
forensic science continues to be challenged by proactive participants in the legal process that
tend to become more demanding and less forgiving.
Keywords
European context, evaluative reporting, forensic evidence
Introduction
Forensic interpretation, that is, the evaluation of the probative value of scientific findings, is a topic that
arises in various contexts and stages in the judicial process. As an integral part of practical proceedings,
evaluative challenges primarily pertain to the particular circumstances of cases, but a closer inspection of
the subject suggests that organisational and academic dimensions should also be observed. Below we
raise these three areas in turn.
Imagine a case of breaking and entering and assault on an elderly woman in her home. At the point of
entry, a large fresh bloodstain is recovered and delivered to the laboratory for DNA analysis. Combi-
nation of a presumptive test and appearance makes it safe to assume that the stain is blood. The same
night, based on the description provided by the victim, the police arrest a man. A reference DNA swab
has been taken from him. The suspect says that he has never been in the premises. At the crime scene, a
weapon is also found. It is swabbed to recover and secure any biological material, including any cells left
by the person who used it. Following laboratory analyses, two DNA profiles were detected, one corre-
sponding to the victim, and the other corresponding to the DNA profile of the suspect. ‘Is this good
evidence?’ is a question that may be found appealing in such a case. Alternatively, it might also be asked
if one could conclude that the suspect is the source of the recovered DNA, or whether the suspect is the
assailant. Such questions may be the result of the stupefying effect of learning that the DNA profiles
correspond, paired with the commonly held belief that a report on corresponding DNA profiles must
necessarily mean something. Discussants may also struggle with the fact that DNA profiles from
different traces corresponding with the profile of the same perso n may have substantially different
probative values depending, for example, on the nature of the staining and the position and condition
in which it has been found.
For several reasons, it is not very helpful to attempt a reply to this questioning at this juncture. One
reason is that further questions are prompted. For example, when asking ‘Is it good evidence?’, an
immediate reaction is to ask: ‘Evidence for what?’ This suggests that, first and foremost, we ought to
enquire about the actual issue in the case and the needs of the members of the criminal justice system. It
might also be advisable to consider what the person of interest says. Clearly, a case in which the suspect
asserts that the weapon is his, but it was stolen from him a month ago, is fundamentally different from a
case in which he asserts that he has nothing to do with the weapon. In the former situation, the question
of whether the recovered DNA profile comes from the person of interest, that is, a question at the so-
called source level, may be of limited interest only (Taroni et al., 2013). This exemplifies that evaluating
scientific findings in the light of relevant case information is a crucial requirement (Champod, 2014a;
Evett and Weir, 1998; Willis, 2014).
Over the past few years, the importance of sound assessment of scientific results in the context of the
case at hand has also been recognised by expert working groups. For example, the European Network of
Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) issued the following statement in 2010:
Biedermann et al. 15
To continue reading
Request your trial