Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence-Based Forensic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective

  • Reference work entry
Legal and Forensic Medicine

  • 268 Accesses

Abstract

There has been a litany of public inquiries in Canada over the last quarter of a century, which openly criticizes the veracity of some or much of the forensic medicine used in court proceedings.

These inquiries have often repeated the same concerns, despite being a decade or so apart, which raises the question whether there are means to improve the use of forensic medicine in legal proceedings.

If nothing else, this has resulted in the focus on an evidenced based approach, increasing skepticism and a greater perception of the frank differences between medicine and law.

This antipathy and skepticism has been an antithesis into the expected perceptive increased reliability and benefits of DNA technologies.

Forensic medicine needs to follow a long journey of development with both procedural and substantive safeguards to ensure or guard against miscarriages of justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

Secondary Authority

  1. Abdel-Aziz A. (2001) Excluding ‘junk science’ from environmental cases Vol. 21 No. 34 The Lawyer weekly.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Casswell D. Through the admissibility maze: an attempt at a purposive structuring (1991) 29 Alta. L. Rev. 584.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Coleman H, Swenson E. DNA in the courtroom a trial watcher’s guide. Washington: Genelex Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cooley C. Forensic science and the death penalty: reform is needed to ensure the Innocent are not erroneously sentenced to death. htpp://www.lawforensic.com/final_intro.htm

  5. Delisle R. (2001) The admissibility of expert evidence: a new caution based on general principles (1994) 29 C.R. (4th) 267.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Delisle R, Stuart D. Evidence principles and problems. 6th ed. Toronto: Thompson Canada Limited; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eckert W. Introduction to forensic sciences. New York: CRC Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein R, et al. Finger print evidence, composite analysis of lead bullets, forensic neuropathology, handwriting, arson, and blood spatter. Innovative advocacy technology & criminal litigation. Proceedings of a Conference; 2005 Feb 10–13; New Orleans; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Erzinclioglu Z. Forensics true crime scene investigations. New York: Barnes & Noble; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Foster K. Judging science: scientific knowledge – and the federal courts. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 1997;11:269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gold A, Bite-mark evidence (1999) Vol. 23, No. 2 Criminal Defense Newsletter.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gold A. Expert evidence in criminal law: the scientific approach. Toronto: Irwin Law; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gold A. Fingerprints exposed. (2000) Issue 212 Criminal Law Netletter.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gold A. Science and the criminal lawyer (Notes presented to the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, November 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hageman C. DNA handbook. Butterworths: Markham; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kenkel J. Burning Dwon the house: challenging the “Science” of Arson investigation Vol. 20 No. 5 Newsletter Ontario Criminal Layers’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Limbert B. (2001) Beyond the rule in Mohan: a new model for assessing the reliability of scientific evidence (1996) 54 U.T. Fac. L. 65–106.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Makin K. The innocence industry. The Globe and Mail (2001 July 7).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mandal V. Death becomes him (2004) Vol. No. 6 MD Canada 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McDonald T. Genetic justice: DNA evidence and the criminal law in Canada (1988) 26 Man. L.J. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Paciocco D. Coping with expert evidence about human behaviour (1999) 25, Queen’s L.J. 305–346.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Platt J. Strong inference (1964) Vol. 146. Science, New Series 347–352.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosenbloom D, Adeli K. Heidemann and bad science: another reason why (2005) 26 Criminal Layers’ Association Newsletter 40–42.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Scheck B, New hope for forensic science quality (2005) Vol. XXIX The Champion National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J. Actual innocence. New York: Signet; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sachs J. Corpse. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tanovich D, In the name of innocence: using SCC evidence jurisprudence to protect against wrongful convictions. Criminal Law in a Changing World Proceedings of a Conference; 2003 Nov 7–8; Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  28. The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report). Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the A.G; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Thompson B, Krane D, Forensic DNA evidence – essential elements of a competent defense review. Innovative advocacy technology & criminal litigation. Proceedings of a Conference; 2005 Feb 10–13; New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vidmar N, Robinson R, Evaluating expert scientific evidence. Education Seminar; 1999 Nov 5; Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

Table of Cases

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir., 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Graat v. R., (1982) 2 S.C.R. 19, 31 C.R. (3d) 289.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R v. Abbey, (1982) 2 S.C.R. 24, (1983) 1 W.W.R. 251, 39 B.C.L.R. 201.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. v. A.K., (1999) O.J. No. 3280 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. v. B.(S.C.) (1997), 10 C.R. (5th) 302, 119 C.C.C. (3d) 530 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. v. Beland, (1987) 2 S.C.R. 398.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. v. Brown, (1999) O.J. No. 4869 (S.C.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. v. Campbell, (1998) O.J. No. 6299 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. v. Chisholm, (1997) O.J. No. 1818 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. v. D.(D.), (2000) 2 S.C.R. 275, 36 C.R. (5th) 261, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 41.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. v. Dimitrov, (2003) O.J. No. 5243, 68 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. v. Dugandzic, (1981), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 517.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. v. F.E.J., (1989) O.J. No. 2724 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. v. Fisher, (1961), 34 C.R. 320 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. v. Heyden, (1999) O.J. No. 4632 (S.C.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. v. Johnston, (1992), C.C.C. (3d) 395 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. v. J.P.G., (1996) O.J. No. 4777 (Ont. Prov. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. v. J.M.H., (2003) O.J. No. 5513 (S.C.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. v. Kuzmack (1955) 111 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. v. Lavallee, (1990) 1 S.C.R. 852, 76 C.R. (3d) 329, 55 C.C.C. (3d) 97.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. v. Luciano, (2004) O.J. No. 4618 (S.C.J.) [Luciano].

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. v. Marquard, (1993) 4 S.C.R. 223, 25 C.R. (4th) 1, 85 C.C.C. (3d) 193.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. v. McIntosh, (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. v. Melaragni, (1992), 72 C.C.C. (3d) 78 (Ont. Gen. Div.) [Melaragni].

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. v. Mohan, (1994) 2 S.C.R. 9, 29 C.R. (4th) 243, 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. v. Nelles, (1982), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Ont. Prov. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. v. Olscamp, (1994), 35 C.R. (4th) 37, 95 C.C.C. (3d) 466 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. v. Perlett, (1999) O.J. No. 2195 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  30. R. v. Pierce, (1993) O.J. No. 1390 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  31. R. v. R. (S.)., (1992) O.J. No. 1126 (Ont C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  32. R. v. Rackley, (1996) O.J. No 2244 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  33. R. v. Russell, (1994) O.J. No. 2934 (Ont C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  34. R. v. S.S., (1977) O.J. No. 1922 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

    Google Scholar 

  35. R. v. Starr, (2000) 2 S.C.R. 144, 36 C.R. (5th) 1, 147 C.C.C. (3d) 449.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R. v. Terceira, (1998), 15 C.R. (5th) 359, 123 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. v. Warren, (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 418 (N.W.T.C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. v. Wilson, (2002) O.J. No.2598 (S.C.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. v. W.S., (1988) O.J. No 2942 (Ont. Gen. Div).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ramirez v. State (Florida), (2001) Fla. (Fla. Sup. Ct. 2001).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This is a great chapter – it is really quite comprehensive – Thank you so much. Could I please ask for the “ready neckover” to look up the facts (without the real) – Thanks again – Roy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, 360A Bloor Street West, POB 19024 Walmer RPO, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Prof. Ken J. Berger

Authors
  1. Prof. Ken J. Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken J. Berger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia

    Roy G. Beran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Berger, K.J. (2013). Evidence-Based Forensic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective. In: Beran, R. (eds) Legal and Forensic Medicine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32338-6_48

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation