Forensic science evidence and the limits of cross-examination

Gary Edmond, Emma Cunliffe, Kristy A. Martire, Mehera San Roque

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
137 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The ability to confront witnesses through cross-examination is conventionally understood as the most powerful means of testing evidence, and one of the most important features of the adversarial trial. Popularly feted, cross-examination was immortalised in John Henry Wigmore’s (1863–1943) famous dictum that it is ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth’. Through a detailed review of the cross-examination of a forensic scientist, in the first scientifically-informed challenge to latent fingerprint
evidence in Australia, this article offers a more modest assessment of its value. Drawing upon mainstream scientific research and advice, and contrasting scientific knowledge with answers obtained through cross-examination of a latent fingerprint examiner, it illuminates a range of serious and apparently unrecognised limitations with our current procedural arrangements. The article explains the limits of cross-examination and the difficulties trial and appellate judges — and by extension juries — experience when engaging with forensic science evidence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)858-920
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume42
Issue number3
Early online date3 Jul 2019
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 3 Jul 2019

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Forensic science evidence and the limits of cross-examination'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this