Abstract
There have been recent challenges in United States’ courts to the admissibility of evidence derived from genetic marker typing of physiological stain evidence. In at least two instances, higher courts have ruled that the expert witness who has offered such evidence is unqualified to testify in regard to its reliability. These opinions raise some interesting questions regarding the status and role of the crime laboratory analyst within the criminal justice system and his relationship to the scientific community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923 )
People v. Young, 418 Mich. 1, 340 N.W. 2nd 905 (1983)
People v. Reilly, Court of Appeal of the State of California, First District, Division Two, filed 25 March 1985.
Grunbaum, Benjamin W. “Physiological Stain Evidence: Guidelines to Assure Quality Analysis,” California Defender, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Spring, 1985. Pp. 20–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Grunbaum, B.W. (1986). Professional Responsibilty: Development and Enforcement of Standards within United States Crime Laboratories for the Genetic Marker Typing of Physiological Stain Evidence. In: Brinkmann, B., Henningsen, K. (eds) 11th Congress of the Society for Forensic Haemogenetics (Gesellschaft für forensische Blutgruppenkunde e.V.). Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-71150-3_107
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-71150-3_107
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-16500-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-71150-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive