expert evidence; forensic science evidence; rights of the defense; regulation; criminal law; right to a fair trial
Biedermann Alex, Bozza Silvia, Taroni Franco, Vuille Joëlle (2020), Computational Normative Decision Support Structures of Forensic Interpretation in the Legal Process, in SCRIPT-ed
, 17(1), 83.
KotsoglouKyriakos, BiedermannAlex, VuilleJoëlle (2020), DNA und Beweiswürdigung, Der statistische Rubikon und die Dogmatik der Identitätsfeststellung (§§ 81e, 81g, 261 StPO), in Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft
, 132(4), 1.
MarquisRaymond, MazzellaWilliams, VuilleJoëlle (2020), Faux en écritures : l’importance du choix de l’expert, in Plaidoyer
, 4, 16.
Progin-TheuerkaufSarah, SironiEmanuele, TaroniFranco, VuilleJoëlle (2020), L’estimation de l’âge des jeunes personnes migrantes en Suisse et dans l’Union européenne : perspectives juridiques et scientifiques, in ASYL
, 1, 3.
VuilleJoëlle (2019), Articles 182 à 191 CPP (experts), in Perrier Depeursinge Camille, Jeanneret Yvan, Kuhn André (ed.), Helbing Lichtenhan, Bâle, 182.
RohmerSandrine, VuilleJoëlle (2019), Articles 255 à 262 CPP (analyses ADN, données signalétiques), in Perrier Depeursinge Camille, Kuhn André, Jeanneret Yvan (ed.), Helbing Lichtenhahn, Bâle, 255.
VuilleJoëlle, BiedermannAlex (2019), Correspondances partielles d’ADN et identifications erronées, in forumpoenale
, 1, 58.
CarusoDavid, BiedermannAlex, VuilleJoelle, GilbyDanielle (2019), In support of a decisional paradigm for assisted dying, in Criminal Law Journal
, 43, 254-273.
VuilleJoelle, ArnoldJoerg (2019), L'appréciation des preuves techniques en matière de circulation routière - les traces numériques, in Circulation routière
, 3, 60-68.
VuilleJoëlle, BiedermannAlex (2019), Le déclin du mythe de l’infaillibilité des empreintes digitales, in Plaidoyer
, 37, 16.
Vuille Joelle, Kuhn André (2019), L'expertise culturelle: une nécessité dans une procédure pénale moderne?, in Revue pénale suisse
, 137, 167-198.
BiedermannAlex, VuilleJoelle (2019), The Decisional Nature of Probability and Plausibility Assessments in Juridical Evidence and Proof, in International Commentary on Evidence
, 16(1), 1-30.
Vuille Joelle, Biedermann Alex (2019), Une preuve scientifique suffit-elle pour fonder une condamnation pénale?, in Revue de droit suisse
, 5, 491-511.
In the Western world, many criminal proceedings nowadays involve some sort of forensic science evidence. Yet, the ability of forensic practitioners to provide the fact-finder with accurate information has been questioned in the last decade. Many forensic disciplines have been denounced as lacking empirical validation, relying too heavily on the subjective opinion of individual experts, and having inconsistent and sometimes shoddy practices. The current situation has varied causes. It could be argued, though, that the core issue is a lack of coherent, systematic and efficient regulation in the field. This project first aims at determining how forensic science evidence is currently regulated in the criminal justice systems of Europe (including Switzerland), assessing whether extant regulatory mechanisms align with the purported goals of judicial fact-finding as well as broader judicial values and principles, and evaluating the relevance of the current regulatory regimes in light of existing knowledge in the fields of forensic science, law, and governance. Four topics will be explored:1) What principles underlie the regulation of forensic science and what are its goals?2) By what means are the overarching goals of forensic regulation materialized? (i.e. how is forensic science evidence currently regulated?)3) How are violations of regulatory norms by forensic science providers defined, how are they investigated and what legal and practical consequences do they have?4) Does the regulation of forensic science evidence answer the criminal justice system’s needs? If so, how? If not, why? And how, if relevant, could the situation be improved?On the basis of the data collected, an integrated framework for the regulation of forensic science evidence in criminal justice systems across Europe will be developed, at the interface of science and the law. At a practical level, coordinated rules will be proposed to harmonize forensic science regulation at a European level, by defining who can act as a forensic expert, how forensic work should be carried out and how scientific evidence should be used in criminal prosecutions. The methodology used will comprise the review of written regulation, the conduct of semi-structured interviews with forensic and legal stakeholders, as well as two workshops with specialized scholars and practitioners. The data collection and analysis will focus on model-types of forensic science disciplines and countries, to maximize the external validity of the findings and make them relevant to any types of forensic science evidence and jurisdictions. The project will aim at developing a comprehensive regulatory regime that will guarantee scientific robustness, transparency, balance and accuracy when forensic science findings are communicated to the judicial fact-finder. By proposing the harmonization of forensic science evidence across jurisdictions, it will also facilitate the transfer of expert evidence from one jurisdiction to another in specific criminal cases and help promote equality of treatment between defendants in the European judicial area.