Menu Expand
  1. Subjects (Books)
  2. Law
  3. Jurisprudence & general issues
  4. Methods, theory & philosophy of law
  5. Law in Times of Crisis
  6. pp. 245–275

BOOK CHAPTER

Cite BOOK Chapter

Style
Meyassed Cnaan, A., Goldshtain, T. (2024). 'Legal Realism and Forensics: Why the Legal System Won’t Go All the Way in Limiting Forensic Evidence to its Actual Capacity' In E. Hilgendorf, (Ed.), Law in Times of Crisis (1st ed., pp. 245-275)
Meyassed Cnaan, Anat and Goldshtain, Talia Eva. "Legal Realism and Forensics: Why the Legal System Won’t Go All the Way in Limiting Forensic Evidence to its Actual Capacity". Law in Times of Crisis, edited by Eric Hilgendorf, Duncker & Humblot, 2024, pp. 245-275.
Meyassed Cnaan, A and Goldshtain, T. (2024): 'Legal Realism and Forensics: Why the Legal System Won’t Go All the Way in Limiting Forensic Evidence to its Actual Capacity', in Hilgendorf, E (ed.). Law in Times of Crisis. Duncker & Humblot, pp. 245-275.
Format
Download

Legal Realism and Forensics: Why the Legal System Won’t Go All the Way in Limiting Forensic Evidence to its Actual Capacity

Meyassed Cnaan, Anat | Goldshtain, Talia Eva

In: Law in Times of Crisis (2024), pp. 245–275

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Chapter Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58941-8.2023.245
Language
English
Pages
31

Pricing

Individual
€ 28.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Anat Meyassed Cnaan

Meyassed Cnaan, Anat, Israel Chief Public Defender, Israel

Talia Eva Goldshtain

Goldshtain, Talia Eva, Lawyer at the Israeli Public Defense, Israel

References

  1. Barzilai, Gad: The King is Not Naked–Why Law is Political, Haifa Law Journal, 2008, pp. 55–79.  Google Scholar
  2. Bush, Mary A./Cooper, Howard I./Dorion, Robert B. J.: Inquiry into the scientific basis for bitemark profiling and arbitrary distortion compensation, Journal of Forensic Sciences Vol. 55, 2010, pp. 976–983.  Google Scholar
  3. Butler, John: The National Commission on Forensic Science and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 2014.  Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, Anthony: The Fingerprint Inquiry Report, Vol. 1, Scotland 2011.  Google Scholar
  5. Cook, Walter W.: Scientific Method and the Law, American Bar Association Journal Vol. 13, 1927, pp. 303–309.  Google Scholar
  6. Coplan, Karl S.: Legal Realism, Innate Morality, and the Structural Role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. Constitutional Democracy, Tulane Law Review Vol. 86, 2011.  Google Scholar
  7. Dagan, Hanoch: The Realistic Conception of the Law, Israel 2009.  Google Scholar
  8. Dagan, Hanoch: The Real Legacy of American Legal Realism, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 38, 2018, pp. 123–146.  Google Scholar
  9. Dekel, Omer/Dotan, Yoav: Different Effect of Biases on Different Types of Decisions – An Experimental Study in Competitive Bidding, 2015.  Google Scholar
  10. Dror, Itiel E./Charlton, David/Péron, Ailsa: Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications, Forensic Science International Vol. 156, 2006, pp. 74–78.  Google Scholar
  11. Dror, Itiel E./Hampikian, Greg: Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation, Science & Justice Vol. 51, 2011, pp. 204–208.  Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, Lee/Knight, Jack: The Choices Justices Make, Washington D.C. 1998.  Google Scholar
  13. Fisher III, William W./Horowitz, Morton J./Reed, Thomas A. (eds.): American Legal Realism, Oxford 1993.  Google Scholar
  14. Frank, Jerome: Law and the Modern Mind, Oxfordshire 1930.  Google Scholar
  15. Garrett, Brandon L.: Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Cambridge 2011.  Google Scholar
  16. Holmes, Oliver Wendell: The Common Law, Boston 1881.  Google Scholar
  17. Hsu, Spencer S.: FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades, The Washington Post 2015.  Google Scholar
  18. Hutcheson Jr., Joseph C.: The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the “Hunch” in Judicial Decision, Cornell L.Q. Vol. 14, 1929, pp. 274–288.  Google Scholar
  19. Krislov, Samuel: The Supreme Court in the Political Process, New York 1965.  Google Scholar
  20. Martin, Michael (ed.): Legal Realism: American and Scandinavian, Switzerland 1997.  Google Scholar
  21. Meterko, Vanessa: Strengths and Limitations of Forensic Science: What DNA Exonerations Have Taught Us and Where to Go From Here, West Virginia Law Review Vol. 119, 2016, pp. 639–649.  Google Scholar
  22. Schauer, Frederick: Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Cambridge 2009.  Google Scholar
  23. Schubert, Glendon: The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology, New York 1974.  Google Scholar
  24. Segal, Jeffrey A.: Separation-of-Power Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts, The American Political Science Review Vol. 91, 1997, pp. 28–44.  Google Scholar
  25. Shor, Yaron/Weisner, Sarena: Survey on the Conclusions Drawn on the Same Footwear Marks Obtained in Actual Cases by Several Experts Throughout the World, Journal of Forensic Sciences Vol. 44, 1999, pp. 380–384.  Google Scholar
  26. Smit, Nadine/Morgan, Ruth/Lagnado, David: A Systematic Analysis of Misleading Evidence in Unsafe Rulings in England and Wales, Science & Justice Vol. 58 No. 2, 2018, pp. 128–137.  Google Scholar
  27. Stacey, Robert B.: Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case, Forensic Science Communications Vol. 7(1), 2005, see https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2005/special_report/2005_special_report.htm (accessed at 29.1.2023).  Google Scholar
  28. Tumonis, Vitalius: Legal Realism & Judicial Decision-Making, Jurisprudence Vol. 19 No. 4, 2012, pp. 1361–1382.  Google Scholar

Preview

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Anat Meyassed Cnaan and Talia Eva Goldshtain: Legal Realism and Forensics: Why the Legal System Won't Go All the Way in Limiting Forensic Evidence to its Actual Capacity 245
I. Introduction 245
II. Disillusionment About the Absolute Reliability of Forensic Evidence 246
Growing Public Interest in Forensics and Better Accessibility 254
III. The Assessment of Forensic Evidence in Israel: The Committee on Prevention and Correction of Wrongful Convictions 255
IV. The Admissibility of Forensic Methods 259
V. Proposed Legal Realist Explanations 264
1. Jurists and the ˋScientific' Appeal of Forensic Evidence 267
2. Disqualifying Forensic Methods That Were Used in the Past 268
3. Avoiding Conflict Between Institutions 270
4. The Difficulty of Detaching from the Agenda of Streamlining Legal Procedure and the Weighting of Utilitarian Considerations 271
VI. Closing Notes 272
Bibliography 274

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.