Chapter 25 - Criminal Profiling on Trial: The Admissibility of Criminal Profiling Evidence

Abstract

The number of courts that critically evaluated the reliability and accuracy of profiling is unexpected. By contrast, it is unclear why so many courts refused, for so long, to conduct similar critical assessments concerning other forensic identification techniques. The answer may lie in the fact that physical evidence provides a concrete form of identification that can be visually appraised before rendering an opinion. Psychological trace evidence, on the other hand, is an abstract identification method; it is impossible to visually evaluate the merits of this evidence before opining on its accuracy and validity. Legal scholars have labeled the different treatment regarding concrete and abstract forms of expert evidence as the “show-and-tell” effect. According to this theory, if the fact finders can evaluate—for themselves—the central facts from which the examiner's opinions were drawn, courts will generally admit the evidence. This approach is based on the assumption that triers of fact can in some way authenticate the examiner's conclusions if presented with the underlying information. Criminal profiling has a nonexistent empirical record that calls into question whether it is relevant and whether profilers can offer accurate predictions. Ultimately, courts have dealt inconsistently with profiling testimony. Whereas unknown subject (UNSUB) profiling has characteristically been excluded, the same cannot be said for motivational analysis and linkage analysis.