Abstract
Notwithstanding the acceptance of firearm identification by courts, the scientific community has been reluctant to recognise firearm identification as a reliable method of conclusively establishing a connection between a particular bullet and a particular gun. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the United States (US) has categorised firearm identification as a discipline under forensic science, and forensic science has been described as a "fractured and burdened discipline". In addition, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that forensic science is broken. With regard to firearm identification, the NAS Report emphasised the need for sufficient studies to be done because this report regarded this type of evidence as unreliable and lacking repeatability. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report, released in September 2016, came to a conclusion similar to that of the 2009 NAS Report with regard to forensic science evidence. With regard to firearm identification, the report asserted that firearm identification evidence still "falls short of the scientific criteria for foundational validity". It is disturbing that courts across the globe are using different types of forensic science without subjecting them to scrutiny so as to determine their reliability. In the light of this, reliability and validity have become important factors which demand attention in Anglo-American litigation, even in jurisdictions that do not have a formal reliability standard (such as England and Wales, and South Africa). This article shows the role of cross-examination in establishing the reliability of firearm expert evidence. It also focusses on the role that South African forensic practitioners, prosecutors, defence counsels and presiding officers can play in ensuring the reliability of firearm identification evidence
Highlights
The research which informs this article was prompted by the fact that the relevant scientific community has reservations regarding the way in which firearm identification has traditionally been accepted in courts, and is sceptical with regard to the assumption that current firearm identification methods can conclusively establish a connection between a specific bullet and a particular firearm
Role of cross-examination in establishing the reliability of firearm expert evidence, and the discussion below focuses on the role that South African forensic practitioners, prosecutors, defence counsel and presiding officers can play in ensuring the reliability of firearm identification evidence
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report maintains that the AFTE document which has been described as the most important source of guidance in the discipline of firearm identification does not touch on issues of "variability, reliability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence."[114] The 2009 NAS Report concluded that the AFTE Protocol was not defined sufficiently for examiners to be able to follow it, when an examiner can be said to have "matched" two samples.[115]
Summary
The research which informs this article was prompted by the fact that the relevant scientific community has reservations regarding the way in which firearm identification has traditionally been accepted in courts, and is sceptical with regard to the assumption that current firearm identification methods can conclusively establish a connection between a specific bullet and a particular firearm. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report, released in September 2016, came to a conclusion similar to that of the 2009 NAS Report with regard to forensic science evidence.[4] This report concluded that firearm identification evidence "still falls short of the scientific criteria for foundational validity" Despite this negative criticism of firearm identification evidence, courts across the globe still use different types of forensic science without subjecting them to scrutiny so as to determine their reliability.[5] In the light of this, reliability and validity have become important factors which demand attention in Anglo-American litigation, even in jurisdictions that do not have a formal reliability standard (such as England and Wales, and South Africa).[6] The aim of this article is to investigate the. Adjunct Professor and Leader of the Law, Science and Justice Research Niche Area, Nelson Mandela School of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Fort Hare, South Africa
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
