Peer-Reviewed Forensic Consultation in Practice: Multidisciplinary Oversight in Common Expertise

The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer‐reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and disco...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of forensic sciences 2014-09, Vol.59 (5), p.1254-1259
Main Authors: Welner, Michael, Davey, Emily E., Bernstein, Adam
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Cooperative Behavior
expert witness
Female
forensic evaluation
forensic science
Forensic sciences
Forensic Sciences - methods
Humans
Interprofessional Relations
Male
Middle Aged
multidisciplinary consultation
oversight
Peer Review
peer-reviewed forensic consultation
Professional Competence
Referral and Consultation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer‐reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and discovery, conventions of testimony of expert witnesses, and attorneys' overall trial strategy. In systematizing heightened oversight, this process ensures greater accountability in forensic science consultation. The integration of peer reviewers' complementary expertise and experience enhances the sophistication and overall quality of assessment. Forensic examination frequently involves the interface of different specialties. Multidisciplinary peer review augments expert proficiency with that of professional peers having different vantage points from relevant scientific disciplines. This approach ensures greater sophistication of a case inquiry, built‐in accountability, and streamlined processes when multiple experts are necessitated. Here, the authors present examples of several cases and the primary and secondary benefits of this collaborative, rigorous, cross‐disciplinary exercise.
ISSN:0022-1198
1556-4029
DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.12470