Development of an instrument for assessing the quality of forensic evidence and expert testimony from three feature‐comparison methods: DNA, voice, and fingerprint analysis. Issue 1 (1st October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Villavicencio‐Queijeiro, Alexa; Loyzance, Chantal; García‐Castillo, Zoraida; Suzuri‐Hernández, Jiro; Castillo‐Alanís, Alejandra; López‐Olvera, Patricia; López‐Escobedo, Fernanda
• Is Part Of: Journal of forensic sciences. Volume 67:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 217
• Page End: 228
• Publication Date: 2021-10-01
• Subjects: admissibility criteria -- DNA analysis -- expert testimony -- feature‐comparison methods -- fingerprint analysis -- forensic voice analysis -- judicial decision makers -- Mexico; Medical jurisprudence -- Periodicals; Forensic sciences -- Periodicals; Forensic Medicine -- Periodicals; Gerechtelijke geneeskunde; Gerechtelijke chemie; Gerechtelijke psychiatrie; 363.2505
• DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.14898
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-1198

Abstract

Abstract: In a context of rising violence and long‐lasting impunity, in 2008, Mexico's criminal justice system underwent a radical change from an inquisitorial model to an adversarial one, to make it more effective, transparent, and expeditious. The new system tasked judges with publicly determining the admissibility of forensic evidence, as well as assessing its technical quality and probative value—tasks for which they currently receive little to no training. With the aim of contributing to the consolidation of the adversarial model, a comparative framework—in the form of a checklist—of the analysis of fingerprints, DNA samples, and voice recordings was created. To do so, a review of the academic literature, published reports, and guidelines was performed. The collected data were synthesized and submitted to a panel of Mexican judges, who provided feedback on its adequacy. The framework focuses on the steps on which quality assurance of forensic evidence depends, organized in five discrete stages that span from the collection of samples at the scene of a crime to the presentation of evidence at trial, specifying the main technical criteria experts should state to allow a decision maker to examine its accuracy and reliability. Differences and commonalities among the three methods were identified, particularly in terms of how qualitative and quantitative analyses are performed in each. Besides its potential usefulness as an aid for judicial decision‐making, the checklist could be a valuable resource for training programs aimed at judges, as well as quality assurance programs.