The introduction of biological evidence in judicial settings raises particular modes of entanglement between professional cultures and perceptions of the probative value of evidence. When DNA evidence reaches court, it also challenges the perceived margins of critical assessment of the work and understandings of previous links in the chain of custody, like the criminal police, forensic experts and the public prosecution services. Given the apparent neutrality of judicial institutions, how do Portuguese judges perceive and value biological evidence? And how do judges see their articulation with other operators of the criminal justice system? An analysis of 14 interviews carried out with Portuguese judges reveals the challenges in the evaluation of biological evidence, which is characterised as a ‘safe haven’, grounded as it is on an indisputable scientific authority. The suggestion of the presence of a cultural rift emerges, which, taken with the work of other epistemic cultures, leads to biological evidence being seen as ‘ready-made evidence’ on its arrival in court, thus limiting the role of judges in its appraisal.
AmorimA (2012) Opening the DNA black box: Demythologizing forensic genetics. New Genetics and Society31(3): 259–270.
2.
AppaduraiA (1986) The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Barzilai-NahonK (2008) Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(9): 1493–1512.
4.
BeauregardEBouchardM (2010) Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice38(6): 1160–1166.
5.
BlumerH (1962) Society as symbolic interaction. In: RoseA (ed) Human Behavior and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 179–192.
6.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7.
ClarkeA (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. San Francisco: Sage Publications.
8.
ColeSLynchM (2010) DNA Profiling versus fingerprint evidence: More of the same? In: HindmarshRPrainsackB (eds) Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 105–127.
9.
CostaS (2017) Visibilities, invisibilities and twilight zones at the crime scene in Portugal. New Genetics and Society36(4): 375–399.
10.
CostaS (2019) Travelling to Prüm – Euphoria and dysphoria regarding the use of DNA data between and beyond borders. Crime, Law and Social Change73: 551–573.
11.
CostaSSantosF (2019) The social life of forensic evidence and the epistemic sub-cultures in an inquisitorial justice system: Analysis of Saltão case. Science and Justice59(5): 471–479.
12.
DaemmrichA (1998) The evidence does not speak for itself: Expert witnesses and the organization of DNA-typing companies. Social Studies of Science28(5–6): 741–772.
13.
DastonL (1992) Objectivity and the escape from perspective. Social Studies of Science22(4): 597–618.
14.
DastonLGalisonP (1992) The image of objectivity. Representations40(S): 81–128.
15.
DerksenL (2003) Agency and Structure in the History of DNA Profiling: The Stabilization and Standardization of a new Technology. San Diego: University of California.
16.
DrorIECharltonDPéronAE (2006) Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International156(1): 74–78.
17.
GalisonP (1997) Material Culture, Theoretical Culture and Delocalization. In: KrigeJPestreD (eds) Science in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam: Harwood, 669–682.
18.
GarrettBLNeufeldPJ (2009) Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review95(1): 1–97.
19.
GierynTF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48(6): 781–795.
20.
GillP (2016) Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Forensic Science International: Genetics23: 9–18.
21.
JasanoffS (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
22.
JasanoffS (2006) Just evidence: The limits of science in the legal process. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics34(2): 328–341.
23.
Knorr-CetinaK (1999) Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA; London, UK: Harvard University Press.
24.
KruseC (2012) Legal storytelling in pre-trial investigations: Arguing for a wider perspective on forensic evidence. New Genetics and Society31(3): 299–309.
25.
KruseC (2013) The Bayesian approach to forensic evidence—evaluating, communicating, and distributing responsibility. Social Studies of Science43(5): 657–680.
26.
KruseC (2016) The Social Life of Forensic Evidence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
27.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LawlessC (2012) The low template DNA profiling controversy: Biolegality and boundary work among forensic scientists. Social Studies of Science43(2): 191–214.
29.
LawlessC (2016) Forensic Science: A Sociological introduction. Oxon; New York: Routledge.
30.
LawlessCWilliamsR (2010) Helping with inquiries or helping with profits? The trials and tribulations of a technology of forensic reasoning. Social Studies of Science40(5): 731–755.
31.
Law n°. 49/2008 (2008) Aprova a Lei de Organização da Investigação Criminal. Diário da República, 1.a série — N.o 165. http://dre.pt/pdf1s/2008/08/16500/0603806042.pdf.
32.
LynchM (1998) Contested identities—The discursive production of uncertainty: The OJ Simpson ‘dream team’ and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science28(5–6): 829–868.
33.
LynchM (2003) God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour27(2): 93–97.
34.
LynchMColeSMcNallyR, et al. (2008) Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
LynchMJasanoffS (1998) Contested identities: Science, law and forensic practice. Social Studies of Science28(5–6): 675–686.
36.
MachadoHCostaS (2013) Biolegality, the forensic imaginary and criminal investigation. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais5(5): 84–105.
37.
McCartneyC (2006) Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
38.
MurphyE (2007) The new forensics: Criminal justice, false certainty, and the second generation of scientific evidence. California Law Review95(3): 721–797.
39.
PrainsackBToomV (2010) The prum regime. Situated dis/empowerment in transnational DNA profile exchange. British Journal of Criminology50(6): 1117–1135.
40.
RobertsP (2013) Renegotiating forensic cultures: Between law, science and criminal justice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences44(1): 47–59.
SaksMJKoehlerJJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science (New York, NY)309(5736): 892–895.
43.
SantosF (2014) Making sense of the story: The dialogues between the police and forensic laboratories in the construction of DNA evidence. New Genetics and Society33(2): 181–203.
44.
SantosF (2015) Genética Forense, Justiça e Média em Portugal: Elementos de co-Produção num Estudo de Cinco Casos Criminais. Braga: University of Minho. http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/36678.
45.
SantosF (2021) Do Meia Culpa a Madeleine MacCann. Casos Mediáticos e Genética Forense em Portugal. Almedina: Coleção CES/Almedina.
46.
ShapiroBJ (2000) A Culture of Fact: England, 1550-1720. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.
47.
SnowDAAndersonL (1987) Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. The American Journal of Sociology92(6): 1336–1371.
48.
StraussALCorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
49.
WilliamsRJohnsonP (2008) Genetic Policing: The use of DNA in Criminal Investigations. Cullempton: Willan Publishing.
50.
WyattD (2014) Accomplishing Technical and Investigative Expertise in Everyday Crime Scene Investigation. Exeter: University of Exeter.
