NCJ Number
217187
Journal
Evidence Technology Magazine Volume: 4 Issue: 6 Dated: November-December 2006 Pages: 18-21
Date Published
November 2006
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article explains the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daubert versus Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals and its impact on the forensic document examination which has proven to be a reliable science for officers of the court.
Abstract
In 1993, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Daubert versus Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Court provided trial judges with five factors to be used as a guide when determining if the procedures used by the expert were reliable and based on scientific knowledge. These factors included: (1) has the expert’s theory or technique been tested; (2) has the expert’s theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) is there a known or potential error rate for this procedure; (4) are there standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (5) is the theory or technique generally accepted by the scientific community? In 1995, the discipline of forensic document examination faced its first Daubert challenge. The document community saw a need to begin documenting how its science met each of the five Daubert factors. In 1997, the Scientific Working Group for Document Examiners was established to begin documenting the different methodologies used by forensic document examiners. To date, 15 standards on individual aspects of the forensic document examination field have been published by the American Society for Testing and Material International (ASTM). Court challenges that were brought forth through Daubert hearings were healthy for all the forensic sciences. As a result of the steps taken by the forensic document examination community, consistency of examination methodologies and forensic document examiners (FDEs) have been established, thereby giving the trial judge confidence in the document examination testimony.