QUESTION 1
In many criminal cases in which violence is an element of the charged crime, presiding officers are tempted to research forensic science to better understand expert testimony.
What would your advice be to presiding officers engaging in this practice?
A.B & C above.
B.Refrain from doing such research altogether. Obtain expert witness testimony and properly receive the information.
C.Such research should only be done to gain background understanding of a specific scientific discipline.
D.Where any independent research is relied upon in coming to a decision in any case, the parties should be duly informed.
My advice to presiding officers engaging in researching forensic science would be:
D.Where any independent research is relied upon in coming to a decision in any case, the parties should be duly informed.
It is crucial that presiding officers remain impartial and avoid any bias that may be influenced by their independent research. If they do engage in research, it is important to inform all parties involved in the case so that they have an opportunity to provide their own input or challenge the information presented. This ensures transparency and fairness in the legal proceedings. However, it is generally recommended for presiding officers to rely on expert witness testimonies and properly receive the information rather than conducting their own research, as they may not possess the same level of expertise as the forensic science professionals.
My advice would be option C. Presiding officers may engage in research to gain background understanding of a specific scientific discipline, but they should refrain from conducting independent research or relying on it to make a decision. It is important for presiding officers to obtain expert witness testimony and properly receive the information, as stated in option B. However, if any independent research is done and relied upon in coming to a decision, option D suggests that the parties should be duly informed.
My advice to presiding officers engaging in this practice would be option B: Refrain from doing such research altogether, obtain expert witness testimony, and properly receive the information.
Presiding officers should rely on expert witness testimony to obtain accurate and credible information regarding forensic science. Experts are well-versed in their respective disciplines and are trained to analyze evidence and present their findings in a court of law. By relying on expert testimony, presiding officers can ensure that they are basing their decisions on reliable and appropriate information from qualified professionals.
Engaging in independent research as a presiding officer may lead to potential bias or a limited understanding of complex scientific concepts. Forensic science is a specialized field with various disciplines, and attempting to research it without proper training and expertise can lead to misinterpretation of information. It is crucial for presiding officers to make informed decisions based on reliable expert testimony rather than attempting to personally research forensic science.
Additionally, if presiding officers do choose to conduct independent research, option D suggests that any independent research relied upon in making a decision should be disclosed to the parties involved in the case. This ensures transparency and allows the defense and prosecution to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of the research in the context of the case.
In summary, presiding officers should refrain from personally researching forensic science, rely on expert witness testimony, and disclose any independent research if it is to be relied upon in making a decision.