Review essay: The building blocks of forensic science and law: Recent work on DNA profiling (and photo comparison)

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aronson, Jay ( 2007) Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).

Ashmore, Malcolm ( 1989) The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Bennett, Lance & Martha Feldman ( 1981) Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom ( New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).

Bloor, David ( 1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Calabresi, Guido ( 1970) The Cost of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis ( New Haven: Yale University Press).

Caudill, David & Lash LaRue ( 2006) No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in Law ( Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc ).

Cheng, Edward & Albert Yoon ( 2005) ‘Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards’, Virginia Law Review 91: 471-513.

Cole, Simon ( 2009) ‘A Cautionary Tale about Cautionary Tales about Intervention’, Organization 16: 121-41.

Collins, H.M. ( 1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London & Beverly Hills: Sage Publications).

10.

Daston, Lorraine & Peter Galison ( 2007) Objectivity (Boston: Zone Books).

11.

Davis, Josh & Tim Valentine ( 2009) ‘CCTV on Trial: Matching Video Images with the Defendant in the Dock’, Applied Cognitive Psychology 23: 482-505.

12.

Dixon, Lloyd & Brian Gill ( 2002) ‘Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision’, Psychology, Public Policy & Law 8: 251-308.

13.

Dror, Itiel , David Charlton & Ailsa Peron ( 2006) ‘Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications’, Forensic Science International 156: 74-78.

14.

Edmond, Gary ( 1998) ‘Science in Court: Negotiating the Meaning of a "Scientific" Experiment During a Murder Trial and Some Limits to Legal Deconstruction for the Public Understanding of Law and Science’, Sydney Law Review 20: 361-401.

15.

Edmond, Gary ( 2002) ‘Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding the Role of Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22: 53-89.

16.

Edmond, Gary ( 2008) ‘Pathological Science? Demonstrable Reliability and Expert Pathology Evidence’, in K. Roach (ed.), Pediatric Forensic Pathology and the Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario): 96-149.

17.

Edmond, Gary , Kath Biber , Richard Kemp & Glenn Porter ( 2009) ‘Law’s Looking Glass: Expert Identification Evidence Derived from Photographic and Video Images’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice 20: 337-77.

18.

Edmond, Gary & David Mercer ( 1999) ‘Juggling Science: From Polemic to Pastiche’ , Social Epistemology 13: 215-33.

19.

Edmond, Gary & Mehera San Roque (2009) ‘Quasi-justice: Ad hoc Expertise and Identification Evidence’ , Criminal Law Journal 33: 8-33.

20.

Faigman, David L. ( 1999) Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law (New York: W.H. Freeman).

21.

Findley, Keith ( 2008) ‘Innocents at Risk: Adversary Imbalance, Forensic Science, and the Search for the Truth’, Seton Hall Law Review 38: 893-974.

22.

Garrett, Brandon & Peter Neufeld ( 2009) ‘Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions’, Virginia Law Review 95: 1-97.

23.

Groscup, Jennifer L. , Steven D. Penrod , Christina A. Studebaker , Matthew T. Huss & Kevin M. O’Neill ( 2002) ‘The Effects of Daubert on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in State and Federal Criminal Cases’, Psychology, Public Policy & Law 8: 339-72.

24.

Harris, Rebecca C. ( 2008) Black Robes, White Coats: The Puzzle of Judicial Policymaking and Scientific Evidence (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press).

25.

Jasanoff, Sheila ( 1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

26.

Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order ( New York: Routledge).

27.

Jasanoff, Sheila ( 2008) ‘Making Order: Law and Science in Action’ , in E. Hackett , O. Amsterdamska , M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (eds), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edition ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 761-86.

28.

Knorr Cetina, Karin ( 1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge (Oxford : Pergamon).

29.

Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar ( 1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Los Angeles: Sage Publications ).

30.

Lynch, Michael ( 2004) ‘"Science Above All Else": The Inversion of Credibility between Forensic DNA Profiling and Fingerprint Evidence’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate): 121-35.

31.

Lynch, Michael & Simon Cole ( 2005) ‘Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise’, Social Studies of Science 35: 269-311.

32.

Lynch, Michael , Simon A. Cole , Ruth McNally & Kathleen Jordan ( 2008) Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Evidence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

33.

Lynch, Michael & Sheila Jasanoff (guest eds) (1998) ‘Contested Identities: Science, Law, and Forensic Practice’, Special Issue of Social Studies of Science 28(5/6).

34.

National Research Council (2009) Strengthening the Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward ( Washington, DC: The National Academies Press).

35.

Porter, Glenn ( 2008) ‘CCTV Images as Evidence’, Australian Journal of Forensic Science 41: 1-15.

36.

Porter, Theodore ( 1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

37.

Risinger, D. Michael ( 2001) ‘Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty being Left on the Dock?’, Albany Law Review 64: 99-152.

38.

Saks, Michael & Jonathan Koehler ( 2005) ‘The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science’, Science 309: 892-95.

39.

Saks, Michael , Elise Porter & David Faigman ( 1994) ‘Check Your Crystal Ball at the Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring the Past, Understanding the Present , and Worrying About the Future of Scientific Evidence’, Cardozo Law Review 15: 1799-835.

40.

Schwartz, Louis-Georges ( 2009) Mechanical Witness: A History of Motion Picture Evidence in US Courts (New York: Oxford University Press).

41.

Volokh, Alexander ( 1997) ‘n Guilty Men’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146: 173-211.

42.

Wynne, Brian ( 1989) ‘Establishing the Rules of Laws: Constructing Expert Authority’, in R. Smith & B. Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (Routledge: London): 23-55.