Abstract

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1261970
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (97)



 


 



Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies


David H. Kaye


Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Law

June 26, 2009

Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1163-1185, Summer 2010

Abstract:     
Day in and day out, criminalists testify to positive, uniquely specific identifications of fingerprints, bullets, handwriting, and other trace evidence. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, building on the writing of academic commentators, has called for sweeping changes in the presentation and production of evidence of identification. These include some form of circumscribed and standardized testimony. But the Academy report is short on the specifics of the testimony that would be legally and professionally allowable. This essay outlines possible types of testimony that might harmonize the testimony of criminalists with the actual state of forensic science. It does so through a critical analysis of the arguments and proposals of two critics of “individualization” testimony in forensic science. By clarifying the relationship between uniqueness and individualization, the essay advances a slightly less skeptical view of individualization than that expounded by Professors Michael Saks and Jay Koehler. Among other things, the essay argues that there is no rule of probability, logic, or ontology that prevents individualization and that testimony of uniqueness or individualization is scientifically acceptable in some situations. Recognizing that these situations are unusual, however, it also surveys some evidentiary rules and practices that could curb the excesses of the current form of testimony.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: uniqueness, individuality, probability, criminalistics, identification, forensic science, evidence, fallacies

JEL Classification: C40


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 19, 2008 ; Last revised: November 20, 2010

Suggested Citation

Kaye, David H., Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies (June 26, 2009). Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1163-1185, Summer 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1261970

Contact Information

David H. Kaye (Contact Author)
Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Law ( email )
Lewis Katz Building
University Park, PA 16802
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,840
Downloads: 902
Download Rank: 18,939
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  97