Abstract
In many cases, such as corruption and forestry-related crimes, an expert has a significant role in explaining the impact of the crime. For instance, scientific expert evidence is required to disclose about the ecological destruction that occurred due to the defendant's criminal activities. In practices, the issue with scientific expert evidence is supposed to be about its admissibility in court. For this issue, the U.S. Court applies Rules of Evidence in considering the admissibility of scientific expert evidence at trial. Those are some requirements (prong test) to be met before expert testimony is admissible. In contrast, the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law (KUHAP) or other laws do not set any prong test for presenting specialist scientific evidence to be acceptable. Lack of such proof may impact criminal justice process reliability and place expert under vulnerable position. Therefore, this paper will explore the issue on scientific expert evidence under Indonesian criminal law as well as its consequences and impacts for the Indonesian criminal justice process.
Highlights
In usual practices, admissibility of evidence becomes an issue, including in the criminal justice process
Referring to the criminal case of Frye v. the United States in 1923, the so-called Frye test was enunciated by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia regarding the standard for scientific expert evidence to be admissible at trial
Indonesian criminal law procedure does not set prong test to determine whether scientific expert evidence is admissible or excluded at trial; the Court still able to examine the evidence, since the judge has an active role in questioning the fact and presented evidence
Summary
Admissibility of evidence becomes an issue, including in the criminal justice process. The Daubert test applies for criminal cases to determine whether the scientific expert evidence is admissible or excluded at trial. Indonesian criminal law procedure does not set prong test to determine whether scientific expert evidence is admissible or excluded at trial; the Court still able to examine the evidence, since the judge has an active role in questioning the fact and presented evidence. Bambang Hero Saharjo had been sued by JJP for unlawful deed Both cases indicate that the lack of prong test on the admissibility of scientific expert evidence has placed expert in a vulnerable position. Even without any regulation about prong test to consider the admissibility of scientific expert evidence at trial, the judge may assess the expert testimony by questioning more about the methodology and the procedure of science that he/she applied. It is a subject to be challenged related to the applied scientific methodology of the expert, and it is not a material for a civil lawsuit
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
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