지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Forensic evidence is material or traces of material that have been analysed by a forensic science laboratory. This is evidence that is used in legal proceedings. It is an investigative aid for the police in their investigation. It can help to identify the perpetrator, to identify signs of physical force and to connect the victim to the location of the crime scene. When forensic evidence is introduced in court, it will usually be explained by an expert - a forensic scientist. The scientist will explain what was done with the sample in question and how it was analysed. The scientist will then explain the laboratory's findings.
The debate over admissibility of polygraph evidence has continued in intervening years. There is no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable. To this day, the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques. Courts continue to agonize over whether to accept polygraph results as scientific and admit them into evidence.
It was held, in the context of a case involving the admissibility of opinion evidence based upon use of a precursor of the polygraph, that scientific evidence would be admissible only after the thing from which the deduction is made had been sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. This standard was the birth of what became known as the general acceptance test. Instead of general acceptance in the scientific community, the new test requires an independent judicial assessment of reliability.
The theoretical foundations behind many sciences are so firmly established as scientific laws that they are more properly the subject of judicial notice; the judge should be able to make a determination. Scientific fields that have been generally accepted by professional forensic associations are proliferating, forensic this and forensic that; there must be some underlying reliability standards, so courts make a preliminary determination of admissibility. This job involves a preliminary assessment of whether the evidence is relevant, competent, and material. In short, can the evidence be properly applied to the facts in this case?
Evidence based on novel scientific knowledge should be admissible only after it had been established that the evidence was reliable and scientifically valid. The trial judges have the duty to act as gatekeepers charged with preventing junk science from entering the courtroom. Scientific knowledge must be derived from the scientific method supported by good grounds in validating the expert's testimony, establishing a standard of evidentiary reliability.
The debate over admissibility of polygraph evidence has continued in intervening years. There is no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable. To this day, the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques. Courts continue to agonize over whether to accept polygraph results as scientific and admit them into evidence.
It was held, in the context of a case involving the admissibility of opinion evidence based upon use of a precursor of the polygraph, that scientific evidence would be admissible only after the thing from which the deduction is made had been sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. This standard was the birth of what became known as the general acceptance test. Instead of general acceptance in the scientific community, the new test requires an independent judicial assessment of reliability.
The theoretical foundations behind many sciences are so firmly established as scientific laws that they are more properly the subject of judicial notice; the judge should be able to make a determination. Scientific fields that have been generally accepted by professional forensic associations are proliferating, forensic this and forensic that; there must be some underlying reliability standards, so courts make a preliminary determination of admissibility. This job involves a preliminary assessment of whether the evidence is relevant, competent, and material. In short, can the evidence be properly applied to the facts in this case?
Evidence based on novel scientific knowledge should be admissible only after it had been established that the evidence was reliable and scientifically valid. The trial judges have the duty to act as gatekeepers charged with preventing junk science from entering the courtroom. Scientific knowledge must be derived from the scientific method supported by good grounds in validating the expert's testimony, establishing a standard of evidentiary reliability.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 과학적 증거의 허용성에 관한 종래의 논의
Ⅲ. 과학적 증거의 유형화와 자연적 관련성의 파악
Ⅳ. 맺음말
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
민사소송법상 과학적 증거의 허용성 : 미국연방증거규칙과의 비교법적 관점에서
강원법학
2011 .02
-
형사소송에서 과학적 증거의 허용범위
강원법학
2013 .10
-
디지털 포렌식 업무의 법ㆍ제도적인 개선방향
서강법학
2008 .12
-
디지털 증거분석도구에 의한 증거수집절차 및 증거능력확보방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2006 .12
-
법과학 증거의 수집절차와 증명력 판단
동아법학
2011 .05
-
민사소송법상 증거결정절차의 개선 방안
원광법학
2010 .01
-
형사재판에서의 법과학 감정과 확률 증거
법학연구
2018 .09
-
과학증거의 자유심증주의 제한에 대한 비판적 고찰
형사법연구
2013 .01
-
디지털 포렌식과 법적 문제 고찰
형사정책연구
2006 .06
-
형사소송에서 디지털증거의 조사방법에 관한 입법론적 고찰-특히 민사소송의 경우와 비교하여-
비교형사법연구
2012 .01
-
디지털 증거의 증거능력에 관한 고찰
법이론실무연구
2016 .04
-
검증조서의 소송절차상 문제점과 그 개선점의 판단기준
일감법학
2012 .01
-
형사절차상 과학증거 활용과 관련한 시각의 전환 : 미국의 과학증거의 증거능력 및 증명력에 대한 논쟁을 중심으로
중앙법학
2012 .03
-
디지털 증거의 증거능력
외법논집
2019 .01
-
디지털증거의 증거능력 인정요건 재고(再考)
디지털포렌식연구
2018 .06
-
디지털 포렌식 법률체계 구축 방안
법학연구
2009 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003957068