Posted on by RB Ostrum · 1 Comment

2014 ASQDE-ASFDE Panel Discussion “Conclusions…”

The 2014 ASQDE–ASFDE conference included an interesting panel discussion with the title “Conclusions… Signature and Handwriting Conclusion Terminology and Scales”. I was fortunate to be able to take part, albeit only remotely via Skype.

ASQDE ASFDE logos

 

The abstract for the session was as follows:

A current and global issue in our field is the topic of conclusion terminology and conclusion scales, particularly in respect of signature and handwriting conclusions. It is an important yet difficult topic to address because, while there is some commonality in the conclusion scales used in different geographical regions around the world, within a number of geographical regions there are multiple scales in use. It is for this very reason that it is also a topic in great need of discussion and there is a strong argument that we should attempt to reach a consensus (even if the result is that we agree to disagree).

This panel discussion is a collaboration of insights from numerous colleagues in our field in person, via Skype and in writing from private and government laboratories in geographical regions across the Americas, Australia, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Read more

Posted on by RB Ostrum · 1 Comment

R. v. Mohan — Canada’s Daubert?

It is safe to say that pretty much everyone working in the forensic sciences has heard of the Daubert ruling or, more specifically, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).1 It was a pivotal ruling that, together with two subsequent rulings General Electric Co. v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)2 and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999),3 has greatly affected many legal jurisdictions in the United States. And, as is often the case, whatever happens in the USA tends to have influence elsewhere.

R. v. Mohan — Canada's Daubert

Shortly after that, in Canada, there was a key Supreme Court ruling that addressed admissibility of forensic expertise — R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9.4

That ruling laid out the test for the admissibility of ‘novel’ expert evidence (see Mohan, page 4) in Canada.

Subsequently, the factors explained in that ruling have been applied, just as those in Daubert were, to many types of traditional forensic science evidence. It is, perhaps, rather ironic that rulings intended to liberalize the admission of new (and potentially) helpful evidence would lead to challenges of all forms and types of evidence.

Read more