Date of this Version

2024

Document Type

Poster

Department

Law

Abstract

Uncovering of instances of wrongful conviction has led to a shift in scientific paradigm is being observed, especially in relation to the forensic disciplines that rely on pattern comparison- like voice-identification, odontology, hair analysis, tool analysis etc. Though it is well-documented that none of the forensic science disciplines, other than DNA, can scientifically claim individualisation, the lawyers and judges are found to be totally oblivious of this scientific reality. Forensic/Scientific evidences, professed as scientific and objective, are routinely admitted. Given the different nature of law and science as disciplines, it is a daunting task for judges to effectively guard against unreliable forensic evidences/testimonies. This task is made more onerous by a number of possible factors – limitation or lack of scientific knowledge in the legal community, partisan bias exhibited by experts, submission of new or dubious science etc. This systemic issue calls for thorough deliberation and serious discussion. The primary goal of the paper is to thoroughly examine the judicial decisions relating to assessment of voice identification evidence, which is one of the feature comparison techniques that have been questioned. This paper begins with analysis of scientific foundation on which voice identification evidence is based. The following section provides a deliberation on various contention issues around this forensic technique. Thereafter, there is review of relevant rulings of the trial court. Lastly, it is concluded that there is dearth of statutory rules in relation to admission of forensic evidence. Resultantly, non-epistemic means are being adopted in courts such as reliance on cross-examination and counter evidence.

Download

Share

COinS