ABSTRACT This article explains why the adversarial trial has not been an effective mechanism for regulating the admission and use of many forms of forensic science evidence. Drawing upon mainstream scientific perspectives, and using an historical study of reported decisions involving latent fingerprint evidence, it documents how lawyers and judges never required forensic scientists to formally evaluate their procedures or express opinions in ways that are scientifically defensible. For more than a century, every challenge to latent fingerprint evidence focused on legal and procedural issues, or the significance of fingerprints for the case. Questions about validity and scientific reliability (eg, Can you do it? How accurate are you?) were not asked until 2015. The study shows that legal approaches and practices were, and are, insensitive to mainstream scientific perspectives on latent fingerprint evidence. It demonstrates that our practices around the admission and presentation of fingerprint evidence (and implicitly many other types of forensic science and medicine) are fundamentally misconceived, that our lawyers and judges genuinely struggle with technical evidence and that our legal institutions have developed rules and commitments that prevent them from receiving the benefits of mainstream scientific research and advice.

中文翻译：

---

法医科学和对抗性测试的神话

摘要 本文解释了为什么对抗性审判不是规范多种形式的法医学证据的接纳和使用的有效机制。借鉴主流科学观点，并使用对涉及潜在指纹证据的报告决定的历史研究，它记录了律师和法官如何从不要求法医科学家正式评估他们的程序或以科学合理的方式表达意见。一个多世纪以来，对潜在指纹证据的每一次挑战都集中在法律和程序问题上，或者指纹对案件的重要性。关于有效性和科学可靠性的问题（例如，你能做到吗？你有多准确？）直到 2015 年才被问到。该研究表明，法律方法和实践过去是，现在是，对潜在指纹证据的主流科学观点不敏感。它表明我们在指纹证据（以及隐含的许多其他类型的法医学和医学）方面的做法从根本上是错误的，我们的律师和法官确实在与技术证据作斗争，并且我们的法律机构已经制定了规则和承诺阻止他们从主流科学研究和建议中受益。