The issue in the court room is the "opinion" of the forensic scientist and the extent to which the judge

and jury "believe this opinion". The issues in the courtroom have little to do with "knowledge".

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

It is very helpful in deciding cases on objective and scientific criteria. Majority of legal professionals have no background knowledge of science so forensic education fills this gap.

Lawyers/Judges do administer justice, and during the course their work they face knowledge gap as they may not necessarily know everything in understanding/interpreting some nature of evidence(s). Knowledge and skills of forensic scientists maybe required to demonstrate an event/scenario for the legal professionals & jury to better grasp.

If medical evidence is used in court then it must be presented in terms that can be understood by all parties. Unless the court is specifically dealing with medical cases then you can not expect judges and lawyers to be familiar with forensics or medicine. This is why we will say "in your professional opinion", to the expert medical witness.

Lawyers and judges understand the laws, while forensic experts understand the technical aspects involved in the case, which can only be explained and contextualized in this legal case by them. They are assistants to justice, cooperating with their award or technical advice so that the judge can have a more accurate view of the legal case.

I understand the opinions, and agree that lawyers/judges understand best law and like wise forensic experts understand best technical aspects (forensics/forensic science) involved in the case(s), and forensic experts do potentially assist the judges in administering justice. There is obviously a knowledge gap on the part of the judges/law professionals in understanding forensic evidences. Quite often a professional opinion maybe sought in the court of law.

Maybe my Master's Degree thesis talk about this question, or some aspects about it:

http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3142/tde-18082010-164616/publico/Dissertacao_Marcelo_Ferreira_Zochio.pdf.

It's write in Brazilian Portuguese.

Thanks for the response sir but the file is not found in link you provided.

A basic forensic knowledge is necessary to understand the deposition made by a forensic expert.

Forensic experts act as a "bridge" between science and law. A good forensic expert not only needs to be well prepared in their field, but they also need to have the ability to easily explain their findings in a way that non-scientists/non-experts can easily understand. They report objective findings related to a specific case to help lawyers and judges reach the right final decision.

However, they only share their professional opinion, that doesn't necessarily reflect the "final decision" of the court. A typical example in forensic pathology is the medicolegal manner of death "homicide" stated on the death certificate, that has no direct bearing on criminal prosecution or insurance settlements: while 'homicide' is simply a term to describe the killing of one person by another, criminal law uses the term 'murder' to indicate a homicide committed with “malice aforethought".

The trial judge serves a role as the “gatekeeper” who determines whether expert testimony is considered reputable and relevant. Similarly, the judge employs a Dubert test to verify whether the testimony of the expert is based on scientifically valid reasoning and whether it has been properly applied to the facts of the issue. The procedure of scientific examination that fails to comply with the Daubert standard may result in the rejection of any expert testimony in the court.

The administration of criminal justice system rests on the police, lawyers and forensic scientists. To prove guilt or innocence, the lawyer needs evidence. In most cases, the evidence is analyzed by forensic experts. Hence it becomes mandatory for the lawyers to have a basic knowledge of Forensic Science.