#Alternatives to festify series#

Consequently, one could argue that if the terminology is not generally used in scientific practice, then scientists should not be expected to express their conclusions to a “reasonable degree of certainty.” Additionally, the Federal Rules of Evidence 702–705 do not require its use, and while very few states require an obligatory recitation of this phrase contemporaneous with the admission of an expert’s testimonial conclusions, many states still ask for the recitation.ĭoes this phrase really bolster a jury’s assessment of forensic evidence? No scientific study has determined whether an expert who uses a statement like “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” either misleads fact-finders or changes the actual meaning of the testimony. It is not a standard applied to scholarly publications or peer review, nor is it taught, defined, or generally accepted in scientific practice. Even though the phrase is commonly used, it has no definition from a scientific perspective outside of the courtroom. See “The History of ‘Reasonable Degree of Certainty’”Īlthough the scientific community has not defined this phrase or any of its variations, it has been offered in an attempt to demonstrate that the expert’s conclusion is not based on mere speculation, but rather scientific principles, education, training, experience, or specialized knowledge. Evaluating and synthesizing that information.ĭuring their education and training, scientists are neither taught nor required to state that the conclusion they reach in the final step is to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”.Posing a question or hypothesis based on the appropriate background facts, knowledge, and information.This method can vary because not all questions can be answered using controlled experiments, but it has some basic tenets: One of the first and most important concepts introduced to aspiring scientists is the scientific method. Two important questions have since emerged: (1) Why not use “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” in testimony and (2) How will courts proceed? Why Not Use “Reasonable Degree of Scientific Certainty”? While the directive issued by the attorney general was issued to federal laboratories and prosecutors, there is some question as to if or how state and local courts, attorneys, and nonfederal forensic science service providers’ experts will alter their testimonial practices. Undoubtedly, the new policy to refrain from using the phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” represents a significant change to the testimonial language that attorneys and scientific experts have routinely used. On September 6, 2016, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Attorney General issued a memorandum and directed forensic laboratories to review their policies and procedures to ensure that forensic examiners do not use “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” or “reasonable degree of certainty.” Department prosecutors were also asked to abstain from using these expressions when presenting forensic reports or questioning forensic experts in court unless required by a judge or applicable law. This phrase has been used in courts throughout the nation for decades and signals that the expert’s testimony is based on sound scientific or technical analysis rather than conjecture.įorensic scientists working in federal laboratories have been instructed to no longer use the phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” in court testimony. When scientific experts express their opinions (or conclusions) in court, they are often asked if their opinion is to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty,” “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” or some variation of this terminology. How will state and local forensic scientists and other attorneys alter their testimonial practice? Wavebreakmedia, iStock ( see reuse policy).Ī new directive instructs Department of Justice forensic scientists working in federal laboratories and United States Attorneys to refrain from using the phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” when testifying.

#Alternatives to festify series#

Research for the Real World: NIJ Seminar Series.Strategic Challenges and Research Agenda.