This piece is an echo to one of the main subjects of the Sixth International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science which is to determine what evidentiary reforms are necessary for regulating forensic expert ...This piece is an echo to one of the main subjects of the Sixth International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science which is to determine what evidentiary reforms are necessary for regulating forensic expert testimony, and how those reforms might be implemented. In United States, the predominant way of evidentiary reform is through rulemaking. As the Reporter of Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence since 1996, the author, with a pragmatic spirit throughout the article, examines such an effort at the federal level of U.S. in six parts （levels）, starting from the most general, abstract level till fmishing with the most detailed and substantive points. Part I begins with a brief introduction of the hierarchies of evidentiary rulemaking authorities at the federal level of the United States, various interested groups and their interesting interactions in the rulemaking process. The author then shifts to the general topic of writing rules with a specific focus on the level of detail that is to be provided in doing so; Part II further narrows down the scrutiny into writing a rule on forensic expert testimony with an emphasis on the necessity of making such a rule change to the current general standards of FRE; Part III directly addresses the challenges of drafting a rule on forensic evidence in FRE, including a comparation of various alternative drafting models; Part IV and Part V respectively discusses the Reporter＇s comments and the Justice Department＇s concerns over the drafted rules; and Part VI briefly discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of a Best Practices Manual on forensic evidence in lieu of rulemaking.展开更多
Expert evidence is admissible under articles 59 and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance,1984(Law of Evidence),in the courts of law in Pakistan.However,the enacted laws and judicial precedents are inadequate to help a tr...Expert evidence is admissible under articles 59 and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance,1984(Law of Evidence),in the courts of law in Pakistan.However,the enacted laws and judicial precedents are inadequate to help a trial judge to get an answer to the question about the reliability and credibility of expert evidence.The process of judicial scrutiny of the expert evidence is challenging in the absence of national guidelines/standards,nonaccreditation of crime laboratories,and poor scientific knowledge of judges and lawyers.Therefore,the judges encounter difficulty in evaluating the knowledge and skills of an expert,validity of principles and methodologies used,application of quality management system,relatability,and reliability of expert evidence.While facing difficulty in ascertaining the level of certitude of expert evidence,the courts accept the expert testimony only when it corroborates the prosecution's propositions,which is a kind of disservice to justice.The reliance of courts on expert evidence varies from case to case,which can be observed in the form of many sporadic judicial decisions.展开更多
文摘This piece is an echo to one of the main subjects of the Sixth International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science which is to determine what evidentiary reforms are necessary for regulating forensic expert testimony, and how those reforms might be implemented. In United States, the predominant way of evidentiary reform is through rulemaking. As the Reporter of Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence since 1996, the author, with a pragmatic spirit throughout the article, examines such an effort at the federal level of U.S. in six parts （levels）, starting from the most general, abstract level till fmishing with the most detailed and substantive points. Part I begins with a brief introduction of the hierarchies of evidentiary rulemaking authorities at the federal level of the United States, various interested groups and their interesting interactions in the rulemaking process. The author then shifts to the general topic of writing rules with a specific focus on the level of detail that is to be provided in doing so; Part II further narrows down the scrutiny into writing a rule on forensic expert testimony with an emphasis on the necessity of making such a rule change to the current general standards of FRE; Part III directly addresses the challenges of drafting a rule on forensic evidence in FRE, including a comparation of various alternative drafting models; Part IV and Part V respectively discusses the Reporter＇s comments and the Justice Department＇s concerns over the drafted rules; and Part VI briefly discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of a Best Practices Manual on forensic evidence in lieu of rulemaking.
文摘Expert evidence is admissible under articles 59 and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance,1984(Law of Evidence),in the courts of law in Pakistan.However,the enacted laws and judicial precedents are inadequate to help a trial judge to get an answer to the question about the reliability and credibility of expert evidence.The process of judicial scrutiny of the expert evidence is challenging in the absence of national guidelines/standards,nonaccreditation of crime laboratories,and poor scientific knowledge of judges and lawyers.Therefore,the judges encounter difficulty in evaluating the knowledge and skills of an expert,validity of principles and methodologies used,application of quality management system,relatability,and reliability of expert evidence.While facing difficulty in ascertaining the level of certitude of expert evidence,the courts accept the expert testimony only when it corroborates the prosecution's propositions,which is a kind of disservice to justice.The reliance of courts on expert evidence varies from case to case,which can be observed in the form of many sporadic judicial decisions.
