Evidence-Based Forensic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective

Reference work entry

Abstract

There has been a litany of public inquiries in Canada over the last quarter of a century, which openly criticizes the veracity of some or much of the forensic medicine used in court proceedings.

These inquiries have often repeated the same concerns, despite being a decade or so apart, which raises the question whether there are means to improve the use of forensic medicine in legal proceedings.

If nothing else, this has resulted in the focus on an evidenced based approach, increasing skepticism and a greater perception of the frank differences between medicine and law.

This antipathy and skepticism has been an antithesis into the expected perceptive increased reliability and benefits of DNA technologies.

Forensic medicine needs to follow a long journey of development with both procedural and substantive safeguards to ensure or guard against miscarriages of justice.

Keywords

Scientific Evidence Forensic Medicine Reasonable Doubt Scientific Expert Appellant Court 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This is a great chapter – it is really quite comprehensive – Thank you so much. Could I please ask for the “ready neckover” to look up the facts (without the real) – Thanks again – Roy.

References

Secondary Authority

  1. 1.
    Abdel-Aziz A. (2001) Excluding ‘junk science’ from environmental cases Vol. 21 No. 34 The Lawyer weekly.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casswell D. Through the admissibility maze: an attempt at a purposive structuring (1991) 29 Alta. L. Rev. 584.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman H, Swenson E. DNA in the courtroom a trial watcher’s guide. Washington: Genelex Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooley C. Forensic science and the death penalty: reform is needed to ensure the Innocent are not erroneously sentenced to death. htpp://www.lawforensic.com/final_intro.htm
  5. 5.
    Delisle R. (2001) The admissibility of expert evidence: a new caution based on general principles (1994) 29 C.R. (4th) 267.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delisle R, Stuart D. Evidence principles and problems. 6th ed. Toronto: Thompson Canada Limited; 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckert W. Introduction to forensic sciences. New York: CRC Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein R, et al. Finger print evidence, composite analysis of lead bullets, forensic neuropathology, handwriting, arson, and blood spatter. Innovative advocacy technology & criminal litigation. Proceedings of a Conference; 2005 Feb 10–13; New Orleans; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erzinclioglu Z. Forensics true crime scene investigations. New York: Barnes & Noble; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foster K. Judging science: scientific knowledge – and the federal courts. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 1997;11:269–276.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold A, Bite-mark evidence (1999) Vol. 23, No. 2 Criminal Defense Newsletter.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gold A. Expert evidence in criminal law: the scientific approach. Toronto: Irwin Law; 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gold A. Fingerprints exposed. (2000) Issue 212 Criminal Law Netletter.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gold A. Science and the criminal lawyer (Notes presented to the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, November 1993).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hageman C. DNA handbook. Butterworths: Markham; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kenkel J. Burning Dwon the house: challenging the “Science” of Arson investigation Vol. 20 No. 5 Newsletter Ontario Criminal Layers’ Association.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Limbert B. (2001) Beyond the rule in Mohan: a new model for assessing the reliability of scientific evidence (1996) 54 U.T. Fac. L. 65–106.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Makin K. The innocence industry. The Globe and Mail (2001 July 7).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mandal V. Death becomes him (2004) Vol. No. 6 MD Canada 17–27.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McDonald T. Genetic justice: DNA evidence and the criminal law in Canada (1988) 26 Man. L.J. 1–24.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paciocco D. Coping with expert evidence about human behaviour (1999) 25, Queen’s L.J. 305–346.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Platt J. Strong inference (1964) Vol. 146. Science, New Series 347–352.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenbloom D, Adeli K. Heidemann and bad science: another reason why (2005) 26 Criminal Layers’ Association Newsletter 40–42.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scheck B, New hope for forensic science quality (2005) Vol. XXIX The Champion National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 4.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J. Actual innocence. New York: Signet; 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sachs J. Corpse. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing; 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tanovich D, In the name of innocence: using SCC evidence jurisprudence to protect against wrongful convictions. Criminal Law in a Changing World Proceedings of a Conference; 2003 Nov 7–8; Toronto.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report). Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the A.G; 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thompson B, Krane D, Forensic DNA evidence – essential elements of a competent defense review. Innovative advocacy technology & criminal litigation. Proceedings of a Conference; 2005 Feb 10–13; New Orleans.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vidmar N, Robinson R, Evaluating expert scientific evidence. Education Seminar; 1999 Nov 5; Vancouver.Google Scholar

Table of Cases

  1. 31.
    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).Google Scholar
  2. 32.
    Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir., 1923).Google Scholar
  3. 33.
    Graat v. R., (1982) 2 S.C.R. 19, 31 C.R. (3d) 289.Google Scholar
  4. 34.
    R v. Abbey, (1982) 2 S.C.R. 24, (1983) 1 W.W.R. 251, 39 B.C.L.R. 201.Google Scholar
  5. 35.
    R. v. A.K., (1999) O.J. No. 3280 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  6. 36.
    R. v. B.(S.C.) (1997), 10 C.R. (5th) 302, 119 C.C.C. (3d) 530 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  7. 37.
    R. v. Beland, (1987) 2 S.C.R. 398.Google Scholar
  8. 38.
    R. v. Brown, (1999) O.J. No. 4869 (S.C.J.).Google Scholar
  9. 39.
    R. v. Campbell, (1998) O.J. No. 6299 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  10. 40.
    R. v. Chisholm, (1997) O.J. No. 1818 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  11. 41.
    R. v. D.(D.), (2000) 2 S.C.R. 275, 36 C.R. (5th) 261, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 41.Google Scholar
  12. 42.
    R. v. Dimitrov, (2003) O.J. No. 5243, 68 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  13. 43.
    R. v. Dugandzic, (1981), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 517.Google Scholar
  14. 44.
    R. v. F.E.J., (1989) O.J. No. 2724 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  15. 45.
    R. v. Fisher, (1961), 34 C.R. 320 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  16. 46.
    R. v. Heyden, (1999) O.J. No. 4632 (S.C.J.).Google Scholar
  17. 47.
    R. v. Johnston, (1992), C.C.C. (3d) 395 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  18. 48.
    R. v. J.P.G., (1996) O.J. No. 4777 (Ont. Prov. Div.).Google Scholar
  19. 49.
    R. v. J.M.H., (2003) O.J. No. 5513 (S.C.J.).Google Scholar
  20. 50.
    R. v. Kuzmack (1955) 111 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.).Google Scholar
  21. 51.
    R. v. Lavallee, (1990) 1 S.C.R. 852, 76 C.R. (3d) 329, 55 C.C.C. (3d) 97.Google Scholar
  22. 52.
    R. v. Luciano, (2004) O.J. No. 4618 (S.C.J.) [Luciano].Google Scholar
  23. 53.
    R. v. Marquard, (1993) 4 S.C.R. 223, 25 C.R. (4th) 1, 85 C.C.C. (3d) 193.Google Scholar
  24. 54.
    R. v. McIntosh, (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  25. 55.
    R. v. Melaragni, (1992), 72 C.C.C. (3d) 78 (Ont. Gen. Div.) [Melaragni].Google Scholar
  26. 56.
    R. v. Mohan, (1994) 2 S.C.R. 9, 29 C.R. (4th) 243, 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402.Google Scholar
  27. 57.
    R. v. Nelles, (1982), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Ont. Prov. Div.).Google Scholar
  28. 58.
    R. v. Olscamp, (1994), 35 C.R. (4th) 37, 95 C.C.C. (3d) 466 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  29. 59.
    R. v. Perlett, (1999) O.J. No. 2195 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  30. 60.
    R. v. Pierce, (1993) O.J. No. 1390 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  31. 61.
    R. v. R. (S.)., (1992) O.J. No. 1126 (Ont C.A.).Google Scholar
  32. 62.
    R. v. Rackley, (1996) O.J. No 2244 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  33. 63.
    R. v. Russell, (1994) O.J. No. 2934 (Ont C.A.).Google Scholar
  34. 64.
    R. v. S.S., (1977) O.J. No. 1922 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
  35. 65.
    R. v. Starr, (2000) 2 S.C.R. 144, 36 C.R. (5th) 1, 147 C.C.C. (3d) 449.Google Scholar
  36. 66.
    R. v. Terceira, (1998), 15 C.R. (5th) 359, 123 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.).Google Scholar
  37. 67.
    R. v. Warren, (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 418 (N.W.T.C.A.).Google Scholar
  38. 68.
    R. v. Wilson, (2002) O.J. No.2598 (S.C.J.).Google Scholar
  39. 69.
    R. v. W.S., (1988) O.J. No 2942 (Ont. Gen. Div).Google Scholar
  40. 70.
    Ramirez v. State (Florida), (2001) Fla. (Fla. Sup. Ct. 2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations