Judicial scrutiny of the forensic sciences is increasing. This scrutiny targets the bases for expert opinions. Forensic pathologists must understand that when they express an opinion it must have an articulable underlying basis. Iowa v Tyler provides a cautionary tale where testimony from a forensic pathologist on the cause and manner of death based exclusively on police reports and audio and video recordings of police interviews of the suspect rather than on medical evidence were held to be inadmissible. Tyler has an odd and distinguishable set of facts, but has been widely cited as an example of problematic forensic pathology testimony.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum for Heads of Department Components (Recommendations of the National Commission on Forensic Science), September 6, 2016. https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/891366/download (accessed 17 November 2021).
13.
U.S. v. Frye, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
14.
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
17.
General Electric Co. v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
18.
Iowa v. Tyler, 867 N.W.2d 136 (IA Sup. Ct. 2015).
19.
Adams v. Iowa, No. 20-0807 (IA Ct. App. 2021).
20.
SimonD. Minimizing error and bias in death investigations. Seton Hall L Rev. 2018-2019;49:255–305.
21.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 641-127.1 (cited in Tyler, p. 22).
22.
McLainL. Expert Testimony and Scientific Evidence. University of Baltimore School of Law, Legal Studies Paper. Published November 16, 2003. http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/922 (accessed 17 November 2021).
