Abstract
Since 2003, more than a dozen wrongful convictions have been identified in English and Canadian child homicide cases. These wrongful convictions are widely attributed to the failings of individual expert witnesses. However, the contemporaneous occurrence of multiple cases in at least two jurisdictions adds to growing evidence that the criminal trial process has systemic vulnerabilities to unreliable expert evidence. One source of vulnerability may be judicial reluctance to examine the independence and reliability of expert reasoning. In this article, I draw on an analysis of medical literature, expert reports and trial transcripts to propose five principles that may contribute to a more robust understanding of expert independence and reliability. These principles are: investigating the process by which an expert has reached an opinion; identifying the variety of sources of expert reasoning; ensuring that inculpatory evidence is not ‘double-counted’ by being unidentifiably incorporated into expert reasoning; investigating the relationship between published medical literature and trial testimony; and giving particular scrutiny to experts whose opinions change or become more firmly held over the course of a case.
Published Version
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