Presenting Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom

AuthorVincenzo Rondinelli
Pages37-43
37
A. INTRODUCTION
The Honourable Fred Kaufman concluded his report involving the wrong-
ful conviction of Guy Paul Morin by stating, “An innocent person was con-
victed of a heinous crime he did not commit. Science helped convict him.
Science exonerated him.”1 Therein lies the conundrum of science in the
criminal justice system. “Good” science may assist in catching criminals
and exonerating the wrongfully convicted, while “bad” science may im-
prison the innocent, but distinguishing between “good” and “bad” science
is not a simple or clear task. Part of the problem may be attributed to Can-
ada’s adversarial justice system, where trial practice can be a tug-of-war
between logic and rhetoric. Logic seeks to f‌ind the truth, whereas rhetoric
seduces the listener to accept the claims of a partisan actor.
Scientif‌ic evidence presents unique challenges for lawyers, judges,
and juries. Yet, due to the complexity of criminal prosecutions, the pres-
entation of scientif‌ic evidence is sometimes necessary. Should an expert
witness make it past the gatekeeping judge,2 it will be up to counsel calling
the witness to help convey the evidence to the jury in an understandable
and memorable manner. Opposing counsel will have a dif‌ferent task. They
will attempt to expose the def‌iciencies in the expert opinion to keep the
1 The Honourable Fred Kaufman, C.M., Q.C., Report of the Kaufman Commission on
Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 1998) ch. VI at 1.
2 See Chapter 3.
CHAPTER 4
Presenting Scientif‌ic Evidence in
the Courtroom
Vincenzo Rondinelli

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT