Citation

Souder W. Commercial standards monthly 1932; 9(3): 59-61.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1932)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Opinions on the science of firearm identification fall into two general groups. The first group would be represented by those who have no faith in the work and who condemn experts as absolutely unreliable and a menace to the State. The second group would be represented by those willing to grant that there are valuable results coming from such work when properly handled. It is to this second class of individuals that this paper is particularly directed. However, the first group should not be ignored. Perhaps they have more reasons for their skepticism than many of us have heretofore been willing to admit.

Obviously when prosecution and defense each introduce expert testimony and this testimony is divergent and contradictory the accuracy for the total expert testimony cannot be 100 percent. Furthermore, many people claim that if the prosecution expert and the defense expert are fully qualified as honest experts there will be no difference in opinions. Facing this condition the public often concludes that one or both experts have not made perfect nor complete preparation for expert testimony.

We should not forget that even the decisions of our courts are not always unanimous, although each member of the court has studied the same evidence. The duties of an expert is to display and interpret the facts to the best of his ability, in accordance with the obligations of his oath he can do no more and he must do no less.

Lack of agreement need not be used as an argument to disqualify all experts...

Language: en