Advertisement

Criminal Profiling as Expert Evidence?

An International Case Law Perspective
  • Caroline B. Meyer
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Crime Scene Expert Testimony Psychological Profile Trial Court Trial Judge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Ormerod, D. (1996). The evidential implications of psychological profiling. Crim L Rev, 92,863–877.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 5.
    McEwan, J. (1994). “Similar fact” evidence and psychology: personality and guilt. Expert Evidence, 2,113–121.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daéid, N. (1997). Differences in offender profiling in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Forensic Sci Int, 90, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11.
    Mueller, D.A. (2000). Criminal profiling, real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide Studies, 4, 234–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 14.
    Winzenried, U. (1989). “Criminal profiling,” Die Schweizer Polizei profitiert aus FBI-Ermittlungsmethode. Kriminalistik, 43,434–435.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winzenried, U. (1992). Serien-Kindermörder bewegt die Schweiz. Kriminalistik, 46,804–816.Google Scholar
  16. 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. 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. 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. 19.
    Cook, P.E. & Hinman, D.L. (1999). Criminal profiling, art or science. J Contemp Crim Just, 15, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osborn, A.S. (1935). Reasons and reasoning in expert testimony. Law & Contemp Probs, 2, 488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, D.C. Cir. 1923.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanders, J., Diamond, S.S. & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 8, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 30.
    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997). 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999). 526 U.S 137. 119 S. Ct. 1167.Google Scholar
  33. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mark, M.M. (1999). Social science evidence in the courtroom, Daubert and beyond? Psychol Pub Pol’y & L, 5, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. 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. 39.
    Penson v. State, 474 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).Google Scholar
  40. 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. 41.
    R. v. Guilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 57.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    People v. Robbie, 92 Cal.App.4th 1075 (2001).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kirkpatrick, L.C. (1998). Profile and syndrome evidence: its use and admissibility in criminal prosecutions. Secur Jour, 11, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gilstrap v. State, 215 Ga. App. 180, 450 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    State v. Armstrong, 587 So. 2d 168, La. Ct. App. 1991.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    State v. Fortin II, 178 N.J. 540; 843 A.2d 974; 2004 N.J. LEXIS 18.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bann, S.P. (2000). State v. Fortin. New Jersey Law Journal, February 28, 2000.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    State v. Roquemore, 620 N.E.2d 110, Ohio Ct. App. 1993.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, Tenn. 2002; 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 398.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385; 736 A.2d 857; 1999 Conn. LEXIS 307.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    State v. Haynes, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 3811, 1988 WL 99189.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    People v. Drake, 129 App. Div. 2d 963, 514 N.Y.S. 2d 280, 1987.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    State v. Thomas, 66 Ohio St. 2d 518, 1981.Google Scholar
  55. 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. 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. 57.
    McDaniel v. CSX Transp., 955 S.W.2d 257, Tenn. 1997, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 915, 1998.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    United States v. Meeks, 35 M.J. 64 (C.M.A. 1992).Google Scholar
  59. 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. 60.
    State v. Lowe, 75 Ohio App. 3d 404, 599 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. 2000).Google Scholar
  64. 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. 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. 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. 67.
    State of Louisiana v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, La. 1993, cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 (1994).Google Scholar
  68. 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. 69.
    Pennell v. State, 602 A.2d 48 (Del. Supr. 1991).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    People v. Schmidt, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9490.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Haakanson v. State, 760 P.2d 1030 (Alaska At. App. 1988); 1988 Alas. App. LEXIS 77, August 5, 1988.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    People v. Walkey, 177 Cal. App. 3d 268, 223 Cal. Rptr. 132 (Cal. App. 1986).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sanders v. State, 251 Ga. 70, 303 S.E.2d 13 (Ga. 1983).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1981).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    State v. Parkinson, 128 Idaho 29; 909 P.2d 647; 1996 Ida. App. LEXIS 1.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    United States v. Pierre, 812 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
  77. 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. 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. 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. 80.
    State v. Fitzgerald, 382 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    State v. Elbert, 831 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    State v. Berrios, 150 Misc. 2d 229, 568 N.Y.S.2d 512 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    State v. Gallup, 98 Ore. App. 211, 779 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    State v. Campbell, 904 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Williams v. State, 649 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1992).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pendleton v. Commonwealth, 685 S.W.2d 549 (Ky. 1985).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    State v. Cavaliere, 140 N.H. 108, 663 A.2d 96 (N.H. 1995).Google Scholar
  89. 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. 90.
    Murphy, W.D. & Peters, J.M. (1992). Profiling child sexual abusers, psychological considerations. Crim Justice Behav, 19, 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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. 92.
    United States v. Newsome, 124 F.Supp.2d 1031 (E.D.Tex. 2000).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    United States v. Mixon, 977 F.2d 921 (5th Cir. 1992).Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    State v. Pennell, 1989 WL 112555 (Del. Super. Ct. 1989).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Brinegar v. United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    People v. Genrich, 928 P.2d 799 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    R v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    R v. J.-L.J. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 487.Google Scholar
  99. 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. 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. 101.
    Gregory, N. (2005). Offender profiling: a review of the literature. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 7, 3, 29–34.Google Scholar
  102. 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. 103.
    Mair, K. (1995). Can a profile prove a sex offender guilty? Expert Evidence, 3, 139.Google Scholar
  104. 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. 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. 106.
    R v. Steven Wayne Hillier [2004] ACTSC 81, 3 September 2004, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.Google Scholar
  107. 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. 108.
    Case of Roland K., Landgericht Nuernberg-Fuerth, KLs 600 Js 37924 /97, June 27, 1997.Google Scholar
  109. 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. 110.
    Mueller, T. (2000). Methodik der kriminalpsychologischen fallbezogenen Tatortanalyse. Innsbruck: Dissertation.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Beschluss of 16.2.1998 – 1 StR 795/97.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Rueckert, S. (2004). Tatort-Analyse. Die Zeit, Nr. 16.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Amtsgericht Bremerhaven, Case of Maria A., Staatsanwaltschaft Bremen, Geschaefts-Nr. 900 AR 436/05, 2003.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Case of Oliver B., Landgericht Dortmund, Ks 190 Js 581 /01, 14 (Schw) B 1/02, April 26, 2002.Google Scholar
  115. 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. 116.
    Hauser, R., Schweri, E. & Hartmann, K. (2005). Schweizerisches Strafprozessrecht (6th ed.). Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Weber, M. (2005). Die Rechtsmedizin – Koenigin des Beweises oder Hure der Strafjustiz? Recht, 25, 147–150.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Schweizerisches Bundesgericht (2003). BGE 129 I 49.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Kocsis, R.N. (2006). Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  120. 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

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline B. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Basel UniversityBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations