Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Criminal Profiling pp 207–247Cite as

Criminal Profiling as Expert Evidence?

An International Case Law Perspective

  • Chapter

  • 4680 Accesses

Summary

This chapter will focus on international case law concerning criminal profiling and the legal framework of (novel) evidence admission. Various cases from US, Canadian, Australian, UK, and German courts will be considered to show how they legally evaluate criminal profiles offered as evidence or, in the case of Switzerland, how such profiles would presumably be treated. It is argued that criminal profiling is currently with good reason failing the legal tests for admissible expert evidence and that judges should therefore not admit criminal profiles, not even as circumstantial evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Meyer, C.B. (2002). Das Taeterprofil aus interdisziplinaerer Sicht, unter besonderer Beruecksichtigung des Strafprozessrechts. In M. Cottier, D. Rueetschi & K. Sahlfeld (Eds.), Information & Recht (pp. 135–172). Basel/Genf/Muenchen: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ormerod, D. (1996). The evidential implications of psychological profiling. Crim L Rev, 92,863–877.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2003). Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling (Inquiry Report). Available at www.ohrc.on.ca/english/consultations/racial-profiling-report.pdf (Feb 22, 2007).

  4. Roach, K. (2004). “Stop in the name of the law”: what law? Racial profiling and police practice in Canada: making progress on understanding and remedying racial profiling. Alberta L Rev, 41, 895–904.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McEwan, J. (1994). “Similar fact” evidence and psychology: personality and guilt. Expert Evidence, 2,113–121.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Daéid, N. (1997). Differences in offender profiling in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Forensic Sci Int, 90, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baurmann, M.C. (2003). Die Operative Fallanalyse des Bundeskriminalamtes. In C. Lorei (Ed.), Polizei & Psychologie (pp. 7–53). Kongressband, Frankfurt: Verlag fuer Polizeiwissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schroeer, J., Trautmann, K., Dern, H., Baurmann, M.C. & Pueschel, K. (2003). The significance of medico-legal findings for behavioral analysis in unsolved homicide cases. Leg Med (Tokyo), 5 (Suppl. 1), S243–S246.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dern, H. (2003). Qualitätsstandards der Fallanalyse bei der deutschen Polizei. In C. Lorei (Ed.), Polizei & Psychologie (pp. 55–75). Kongressband, Frankfurt: Verlag fuer Polizeiwissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Busch, T.P. & Kleihege, H. (2003). Qualitaetsstandards und praktischer Nutzen von psychologischen Taeterprofilen. In Lorei (Ed.), Polizei & Psychologie (pp. 175–186). Kongressband, Frankfurt: Verlag fuer Polizeiwissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mueller, D.A. (2000). Criminal profiling, real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide Studies, 4, 234–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Asgard, U. (1998). Swedish experiences in offender profiling and evaluation of some aspects of a case of murder an abduction in Germany. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Methods of Case Analysis, An International Symposium (pp. 125–130). Wiesbaden, Germany: BKA-Forschungsreihe 38.2.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wells, S. & West, A. (1998). The national crime faculty and offender profiling. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Methods of Case Analysis, An International Symposium (pp. 113–124). Wiesbaden, Germany: BKA-Forschungsreihe 38.2.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Winzenried, U. (1989). “Criminal profiling,” Die Schweizer Polizei profitiert aus FBI-Ermittlungsmethode. Kriminalistik, 43,434–435.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Winzenried, U. (1992). Serien-Kindermörder bewegt die Schweiz. Kriminalistik, 46,804–816.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ormerod, D. (1999). Criminal profiling: trial by judge and jury, not criminal psychologist. In D.V. Canter & L.J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in Policy and Practice (pp. 207–261). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bekerian, D.A. & Jackson, J.L. (1999). Critical issues in offender profiling. In L. Jackson Janet & A. Bekerian Debra (Eds.), Offender Profiling, Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 209–220). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gudjonsson, G.H. & Copson, G. (1999). The role of the expert in criminal investigation. In J.L. Jackson & D.A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender Profiling, Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 61–76). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cook, P.E. & Hinman, D.L. (1999). Criminal profiling, art or science. J Contemp Crim Just, 15, 230–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cox, K. (1999). Psychologists as expert witnesses. In D. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in Policy and Practice (pp. 189–206). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ingram, S. (1998). If the profile fits: admitting criminal psychological profiles into evidence in criminal trials. Wash Univ J Urban Contemp Law, 54, 239–266.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Groscup, J.L., Penrod, S.D., Studebaker, C.A. & O’Neil, K.M. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 8, 339–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Osborn, A.S. (1935). Reasons and reasoning in expert testimony. Law & Contemp Probs, 2, 488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, D.C. Cir. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Giannelli, P.C. (1980). The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States, a half century later. Colum L Rev, 80, 1197–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grove, W.M. & Barden, R.C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system, the admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 5, 224–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanders, J., Diamond, S.S. & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 8, 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Federal Rules of Evidence. (2004). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. Available at judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/108th/evid2004.pdf (Feb 22, 2007).

  29. Federal Rules of Evidence. Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 702. Available at www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule702.htm (Feb 22, 2007).

  30. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786.

    Google Scholar 

  31. General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997). 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999). 526 U.S 137. 119 S. Ct. 1167.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Saks, M.J. (1998). Merlin and Solomon: lessons from the law’s formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings LJ, 49, 1069–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gatowski, S., Dobbin, S., Richardson, J.T., Ginsburg, G., Merlino, M. & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law & Hum Behav, 25, 433–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Dahir, V.B., Richardson, J.T., Ginsburg, G.P., Gatowski, S.I., Dobbin, S.A. & Merlino M.L. (2005). Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence. Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 11, 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mark, M.M. (1999). Social science evidence in the courtroom, Daubert and beyond? Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 5, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Denbeaux, M.P. & Risinger, M.D. (2003). Kumho tire and expert reliability: how the question you ask gives the answer you get. Seton Hall L Rev, 34, 15–75.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lindman, C.R. (1989). Sources of judicial distrust of social science evidence: a comparison of social science and jursisprudence. Indiana LJ, 64, 755.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Penson v. State, 474 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), and 2000 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 98, CR-97-0768, 1999 WL 722688 (Ala. Crim. App. April 28, 2000), opinion after remand.

    Google Scholar 

  41. R. v. Guilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  42. People v. Robbie, 92 Cal.App.4th 1075 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kirkpatrick, L.C. (1998). Profile and syndrome evidence: its use and admissibility in criminal prosecutions. Secur Jour, 11, 255–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Davis, D. & Follette, W.C. (2002). Rethinking the probative value of evidence: base rates, intuitive profiling, and the “postdiction” of behavior. Law & Hum Behav, 26, 133–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gilstrap v. State, 215 Ga. App. 180, 450 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  46. State v. Armstrong, 587 So. 2d 168, La. Ct. App. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  47. State v. Fortin II, 178 N.J. 540; 843 A.2d 974; 2004 N.J. LEXIS 18.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bann, S.P. (2000). State v. Fortin. New Jersey Law Journal, February 28, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  49. State v. Roquemore, 620 N.E.2d 110, Ohio Ct. App. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  50. State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, Tenn. 2002; 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 398.

    Google Scholar 

  51. State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385; 736 A.2d 857; 1999 Conn. LEXIS 307.

    Google Scholar 

  52. State v. Haynes, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 3811, 1988 WL 99189.

    Google Scholar 

  53. People v. Drake, 129 App. Div. 2d 963, 514 N.Y.S. 2d 280, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  54. State v. Thomas, 66 Ohio St. 2d 518, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DiStefano, No. 96-CR-737, April 5, 1999, partly printed in Pennsylvania Discovery and Evidence Reporter, Vol. 6, No. 12, February 18, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Grezlak, H. (1999). Profiling Testimony Inadmissible in Murder Trial. Pennsylvania Law Weekly, April 12. Available at www.corpus-delicti.com/court_hazelwalter.html (Feb 22, 2007).

  57. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., 955 S.W.2d 257, Tenn. 1997, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 915, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  58. United States v. Meeks, 35 M.J. 64 (C.M.A. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cochran, D.Q. (1999). Alabama v. Clarence Simmons: FBI “profiler” testimony to establish an essential element of capital murder. Law & Psychol Rev, 23, 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  60. State v. Lowe, 75 Ohio App. 3d 404, 599 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  61. State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  63. State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  64. State v. Fortin I, 318 N.J. Super. 577, 724 A.2d 818, App.Div. 1999, aff’d, 162 N.J. 517, 745 A.2d 509, 2000, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 32.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Risinger, D.M. & Loop, J.L. (2002). Three card monte, monty hall, modus operandi and “offender profiling”: some lessons of modern cognitive science for the law of evidence. Cardozo L Rev, 24, 193–285.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Simitz, M. (2000). Suverys of recent developments in New Jersey law: State v. Fortin, 162 N.J. 517, 745 A.2d 509 (2000). Seton Hall L Rev, 30, 1343–1351.

    Google Scholar 

  67. State of Louisiana v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, La. 1993, cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  68. State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 882 P.2d 747, 1994, cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129, 115 S.Ct. 2004, 131 L. Ed. 2d 1005 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Pennell v. State, 602 A.2d 48 (Del. Supr. 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  70. People v. Schmidt, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9490.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Haakanson v. State, 760 P.2d 1030 (Alaska At. App. 1988); 1988 Alas. App. LEXIS 77, August 5, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  72. People v. Walkey, 177 Cal. App. 3d 268, 223 Cal. Rptr. 132 (Cal. App. 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sanders v. State, 251 Ga. 70, 303 S.E.2d 13 (Ga. 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  74. State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  75. State v. Parkinson, 128 Idaho 29; 909 P.2d 647; 1996 Ida. App. LEXIS 1.

    Google Scholar 

  76. United States v. Pierre, 812 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  77. State v. Person, 20 Conn. App. 115, 564 A.2d 626, Conn. App. Ct. 1989, aff’d, 213 Conn. 811, 568 A.2d 796, 1990, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1048, 112 L. Ed. 2d 776, 111 S. Ct. 756, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  78. People v. Edwards, 224 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 586 N.E.2d 1326, 167 Ill. Dec. 54 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 734, 636 N.E.2d 291 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) overruled on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 419 Mass. 750, 647 N.E.2d 413 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  80. State v. Fitzgerald, 382 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  81. State v. Elbert, 831 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  82. State v. Berrios, 150 Misc. 2d 229, 568 N.Y.S.2d 512 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  83. State v. Gallup, 98 Ore. App. 211, 779 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  84. State v. Campbell, 904 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Williams v. State, 649 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  86. State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Pendleton v. Commonwealth, 685 S.W.2d 549 (Ky. 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  88. State v. Cavaliere, 140 N.H. 108, 663 A.2d 96 (N.H. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Myers, J., Bays, J., Becker, J., Berliner, L., Corwin, D. & Saywitz, K. (1989). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse litigation. Neb L Rev, 68, 1–146.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Murphy, W.D. & Peters, J.M. (1992). Profiling child sexual abusers, psychological considerations. Crim Justice Behav, 19, 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Kohler v. Englade et al., 365 F. Supp. 2d 751; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6673 and 365 F.Supp. 2d 758; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6672.

    Google Scholar 

  92. United States v. Newsome, 124 F.Supp.2d 1031 (E.D.Tex. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  93. United States v. Mixon, 977 F.2d 921 (5th Cir. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  94. State v. Pennell, 1989 WL 112555 (Del. Super. Ct. 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Brinegar v. United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  96. People v. Genrich, 928 P.2d 799 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  97. R v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402.

    Google Scholar 

  98. R v. J.-L.J. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 487.

    Google Scholar 

  99. R. v. Ranger, 2003 W.C.B.J. LEXIS 1616; 2003 W.C.B.J. 26204; 59 W.C.B.2d 21, September 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  100. R v. Clark, 2004 W.C.B.H. LEXIS 459; 2004 W.C.B.J. 7975; 61 W.C.B. (2d) 104, January 26, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Gregory, N. (2005). Offender profiling: a review of the literature. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 7, 3, 29–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. R v. Stagg, Central Criminal Court, London, 14th September 1994, Transcript of the Palantype Notes of DL Sellers & Co. on file with author.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Mair, K. (1995). Can a profile prove a sex offender guilty? Expert Evidence, 3, 139.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Lowe, A. (2001). Expert Evidence: Criminal Profiling in Australian Courts. Available at www.forensic-criminology.com/readings/expert 20evidence.htm (Feb 22, 2007).

  105. R v. Steven Wayne Hillier [2003] ACTSC 50, 25 June 2003 (Australia). Available at www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/hillier.htm (Feb 22, 2007).

  106. R v. Steven Wayne Hillier [2004] ACTSC 81, 3 September 2004, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

    Google Scholar 

  107. R v. Steven Wayne Hillier [2005] ACTCA 48, 15 December 2005, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Case of Roland K., Landgericht Nuernberg-Fuerth, KLs 600 Js 37924 /97, June 27, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Bruns, M. (2002). Die Bedeutung der operativen Fallanalyse im Strafprozess. In C. Musolff & J. Hoffmann (Eds.), Taeterprofile bei Gewaltverbrechen (pp. 281–302). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Mueller, T. (2000). Methodik der kriminalpsychologischen fallbezogenen Tatortanalyse. Innsbruck: Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Beschluss of 16.2.1998 – 1 StR 795/97.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Rueckert, S. (2004). Tatort-Analyse. Die Zeit, Nr. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Amtsgericht Bremerhaven, Case of Maria A., Staatsanwaltschaft Bremen, Geschaefts-Nr. 900 AR 436/05, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Case of Oliver B., Landgericht Dortmund, Ks 190 Js 581 /01, 14 (Schw) B 1/02, April 26, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Gerst, H.-J. (2001). Profiler – Vom Taeterprofilersteller in den USA und der Implementierbarkeit einzelner Aspekte seiner Taetigkeit in das deutsche Rechtssystem. München: Herbert Utz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Hauser, R., Schweri, E. & Hartmann, K. (2005). Schweizerisches Strafprozessrecht (6th ed.). Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Weber, M. (2005). Die Rechtsmedizin – Koenigin des Beweises oder Hure der Strafjustiz? Recht, 25, 147–150.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Schweizerisches Bundesgericht (2003). BGE 129 I 49.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Kocsis, R.N. (2006). Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  120. State v. Cary, 99 N.J. Super. 323, 239 A.2d 680 (Law. Div. 1968); aff’d, 56 N.J. 16, 264 A.2d 209 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Basel University, Basel, Switzerland

    Caroline B. Meyer

Authors
  1. Caroline B. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Richard N. Kocsis PhD (Forensic Psychologist)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Humana Press Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meyer, C.B. (2008). Criminal Profiling as Expert Evidence?. In: Kocsis, R.N. (eds) Criminal Profiling. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-146-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-146-2_10

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-684-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-146-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation