About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

61 Vand. L. Rev. 199 (2008)
The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence

handle is hein.journals/vanlr61 and id is 211 raw text is: The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence Michael J. Saks* & Jonathan J. Koehler* I. FOREWORD: THE TWO STEPS IN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION .................................................................. 199 II. THE INDIVIDUALIZATION FALLACY ...................................... 203 A. Reliance on the Notion of Individualization ........... 205 B. Origins and Evolution of the Notion of Individualization ..................................... 207 III. UNPROVED AND PERHAPS UNPROVABLE .............................. 208 IV . O LD N EW S ........................................................................... 214 V . W HAT TO D O ........................................................................ 216 A . The P resent .............................................................. 216 B . The F uture ............................................................... 217 V I. C ON CLU SION ........................................................................ 218 I. FOREWORD: THE TWO STEPS IN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION Forensic identification science involves two fundamental steps. The first step is to compare a questioned item of evidence to an exemplar from a known source and judge whether they appear so alike that they can be said to match. The second step is to assess the meaning of that reported match: What is the probability that the questioned and the known originated from the same source?1 Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology, and Fellow of the Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. Ph.D. 1975, Ohio State University; M.S.L. 1985, Yale Law School. .. Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University. Ph.D. 1989, University of Chicago. 1. From an evidentiary value perspective, the two steps that we identify might be referred to as reliability and diagnosticity, respectively. See generally DAVID A. SCHUM, EVIDENTIAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROBABILISTIc REASONING (1994). The first step involves the reliability of the evidence because it concerns the value of the expert's testimony for establishing that the questioned and the known samples do, in fact, share characteristics. The second step involves the diagnosticity of the evidence because it concerns the value of the match conclusion for drawing an inference that the questioned and known samples share a common source. 199

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most