On the Criteria for Evaluating an Expert's Opinion and Forensic Methods by Participants in the Legal Proceedings

Abstract

The issues of assessing the reliability of experts’ opinions are common for Russian and Anglo-Saxon legal proceedings. In the Russian legislation there are no legal norms or regulated rules defining this procedure. At the same time, in the USA there is Rule 702 “Expert Witness Testimony” of the Federal Code of Evidence which establishes four criteria that courts should consider when assessing the admissibility of the testimony of a forensic expert. Besides, based on court decisions, Fry and Daubert standards have been adopted. They determine criteria for methods used in conducting forensic examination in the United States. The article analyzes and evaluates the compliance of expert methods applied in Russia with the Fry and Daubert standards. The analysis shows that not all methods meet the criteria of Daubert standard. In particular, the structures of the so-called subjective methods do not provide calculations of a known or potential error rate as well as a mechanism for monitoring the conduct of various stages of a study. The article also discusses other foreign projects aimed at minimizing erroneous conclusions and reforming the system of forensic examination: the Innocence project, reports prepared by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS report) and the US Presidential Council for Science and Technology (PCAST report). The authors believe that it is essential for the Russian legislation to develop criteria for evaluating experts’ opinions, research methods and scientific validity of the obtained results as well as the to formulate the appropriate norms.