Examination of Firearms Review: 2007 to 2010 - Interpol

Pollitt states that managing expectations is the key to conducting good,
defensible forensic examinations (65). This he states is achieved by
learning to clearly articulate digital forensic case objectives and the
concomitant forensic questions, to gain the understanding and agreement
of digital forensic clients, and provide realistic feedback on the proposed
investigative request. He states that digital forensic examiners need to be
persuasive communicators who can help their clients to more clearly
understand their own cases and the limits of the examiner’s ability to help
them.
5 Legal Issues
5.1 Presentation of digital evidence
The case of Daubert obligated trial court judges to assume the role of
“gatekeepers” and to exclude proffered scientific evidence unless it rested
on scientifically valid reasoning and methodology (66). The National
Acedemy of Sciences Report states the least that the courts should insist
upon from any forensic discipline is certainty that practitioners in the field
adhere to enforceable standards, ensuring that any and all scientific
testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable (67).
According to Neufeld, for years in the forensic science community, the
dominant argument against regulating experts was that every time a
forensic scientist steps into a courtroom, his or her work is vigorously peer
reviewed and scrutinized by opposing counsel. Neufeld states that a
forensic scientist might occasionally make an error in the crime laboratory,
but any vigorous cross-examination would expose it at trial (68).
The National Academy of Sciences Report states that scientific
conclusions are subject to perpetual revision with the law in contrast
required resolve disputes finally and quickly (69). Law enforcement officials
and the members of society they serve need to be assured that forensic
techniques are reliable. Therefore, we must limit the risk of having the
reliability of certain forensic science methodologies condoned by the courts
before the techniques have been properly studied and their accuracy
verified (70).
The requirements are not without their detractors. Casey argues that
although these requirements are designed to raise the bar for forensic
disciplines, they could have unintended adverse ramifications for digital
forensic practitioners and labs (71). Casey states requiring digital forensic
practitioners to be board-certified may be overly restrictive, and may need
to be broadened to accommodate several digital forensic certifications.
Casey states that unfairly burdening small local law enforcement and
private sector labs with accreditation requirements designed for large
410