Forensic evidence in Criminal Procedure: the comprehension and mitigation of forensic errors as a mechanism to promote the adversarial principle, the full defense and the right to legal evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i2.819Keywords:
Forensic science, criminal sciences, forensics, human rightsAbstract
Forensic science contributes to criminal science by using scientific methods, which allow for greater controllability in producing evidence, seeking to reduce the subjectivism inherent in other types of proof. In this scenario, we aim to answer the question: how can the comprehension and mitigation of forensic errors contribute to ensuring the rights of the adversarial principle, the entire defense, and legal evidence? The working hypothesis is that knowledge about forensic errors is indispensable for the high quality of expert evidence, resulting in a more coherent, evidential assessment that is more focused on the facts to reduce arbitrariness and judicial errors. To this end, the hypothetical-deductive method was used, with the technique of bibliographic review and reference to jurisprudence. In conclusion, it was possible to show that the scientific community should reflect, discuss and value more rigor in forensic science, prioritizing a clear communication of results to harmonize science, justice, and society.
Downloads
References
AUILO, Rafael Stefanini. A valoração judicial da prova no direito brasileiro. 1. ed. Salvador: Editora Juspodivm, 2021.
BELL, Suzane; SAH, Sunita; ALBRIGHT, Thomas D.; GATES JR, S. James; DENTON, M. Bonner; CASADEVALL, Arturo. A call for more science in forensic science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 115, n. 18, p. 4541–4544, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712161115
BILLIS, Emmanouil. On the methodology of comparative criminal law research. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, v. 24, n. 6, p. 864–881, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x17745795
BORDIN, Dayanne Cristiane; MESSIAS, Marcos; LANARO, Rafael; CAZENAVE, Silvia Oliveira Santos; COSTA, José Luiz. Análise forense: pesquisa de drogas vegetais interferentes de testes colorimétricos para identificação dos canabinoides da maconha (Cannabis Sativa L.). Química Nova, v. 35, n. 10, p. 2040–2043, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422012001000025
BRACH, Raymond M.; DUNN, Patrick F. Uncertainty Analysis for Forensic Science. 2. ed. Tucson: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, 2009.
CHRISTENSEN, Angi M.; Crowder, Christian M.; OUSLEY, Stephen D.; HOUCK, Max M. Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, v. 59, n. 1, p. 123–126, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12275
CLARKE, Ronald V. Technology, Criminology and Crime Science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, v. 10, p. 55–63, 2004.
COCKBAIN, Eleanor; LAYCOCK, Gloria. Crime Science. In: PONTEL, Henry (ed.). The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford Univerity Press, 2017.
CONCEIÇÃO, Vitor N.; SOUZA, Lindamara M.; MERLO, Bianca B.; FILGUEIRAS, Paulo R.; POPPI, Ronei J.; ROMÃO, Wanderson. Estudo do teste de Scott via técnicas espectroscópicas: um método alternativo para diferenciar cloridrato de cocaína e seus adulterantes. Química Nova, v. 37, n. 9, p. 1538–1544, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5935/0100-4042.20140240
COOPER, Glinda S.; METERKO, Vanessa. Cognitive Bias Research in Forensic Science: A Systematic Review. Forensic Science International, v. 297, p. 35–46, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1036/1097-8542.yb120321
CRESSEY, Daniel. Forensic investigation needs more science. Nature, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11271
CRISPINO, Frank; WEYERMANN, Céline; DELÉMONT, Olivier; ROUX, Claude; RIBAUX, Olivier. Towards another paradigm for forensic science? Wires Forensic Science, v. 4, n. 3, p. 1–15, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1441
CRISPINO, Frank. Nature and place of crime scene management within forensic sciences. Science and Justice, v. 48, n. 1, p. 24–28, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2007.09.009
D. FREE, JR., Marvin; RUESINK, Mitch. Flawed justice: A study of wrongly convicted African American women. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, v. 16, n. 4, p. 333-347, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2015.1015199
DE ANDRADE, Ana Flávia Belchior; SALUM, Lívia Barros; FERRARI JÚNIOR, Ettore. Forensic laboratory backlog: The impact of inconclusive results of marijuana analysis and the implication on analytical routine. Science and Justice, v. 61, n. 6, p. 755–760, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.09.005
DE MENDONÇA, Andrey Borges. The Criminal Justice System in Brazil: a brief account. Resource Material Series, n. 92, p. 63–70, 2014.
DE JONG, Mats; FLOREA, Anca; ELIAERTS, Joy; DURME, Filip Van; SAMYN, Nele; DE WAEL, Karolien. Tackling Poor Specificity of Cocaine Color Tests by Electrochemical Strategies. Analytical Chemistry, v. 90, n. 11, p. 6811–6819, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00876
DROR, Itiel; CHARLTON, David. Why Experts Make Errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, v. 56, n. 4, p. 600–616, 2006.
DROR, Itiel E; SCURICH, Nicholas. (Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science. Forensic Science International: Synergy. v. 2, p. 333-338, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.006
DROR, Itiel E. Human expert performance in forensic decision making: Seven different sources of bias. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, v. 49, p. 541–547, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2017.1281348
DU, Mingxiao. Analysis of errors in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, v. 3, n. 3, p. 139-143, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_8_17
EDMOND, Gary; TANGEN, Jason; SEARSTON, Rachel A.; DROR, Itiel E. Contextuais bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: the corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability and Risk, v. 14, n. 1, p. 1–25, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018
EDMOND, Gary; FOUND, Bryan; MARTIRE, Kristy; BALLANTYNE, Kaye; HAMER, David; SEARSTON, Rachel. Model forensic science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, v. 48, n. 5, p. 496–537, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969
ELIAERTS, J.; MEERT, N,; VAN DURME, F.; DARDENNE, P.; CHARLES, S.; DE WAEL, K; SAMYN, N. Challenges for cocaine detection in smuggling samples. Forensic Science International, v. 319, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110534
ENFSI. Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe (STEOFRAE). Disponível em: <https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/m1_guideline.pdf>. Acesso em: 4 nov. 2022.
ESSEIVA, Pierre; IOSET, Sylvain; ANGLADA, Frédéric; GASTÉ, Laëtitia; RIBAUX, Olivier; MARGOT, Pierre; GALLUSSER, Alain; BIEDERMANN, Alex; SPECHT, Yves; OTTINGER, Edmond. Forensic drug Intelligence: An important tool in law enforcement. Forensic Science International, v. 167, n. 2–3, p. 247–254, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.032
FONSECA, David S. Expansion, standardization, and densification of the criminal justice apparatus: Recent developments in Brazil. Punishment and Society, v. 20, n. 3, p. 329–350, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517694504
FÓRUM BRASILEIRO DE SEGURANÇA PÚBLICA. Anuário Brasileiro de Segurança Pública. Disponível em: <https://forumseguranca.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/anuario-2022.pdf?v=5>. Acesso em: 4 nov. 2022.
FRANCK, Harold; FRANCK, Darren. Ethical Standards in Forensic Science. Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press, 2020.
FUCCI, Nadia; DE GIOVANNI, Nadia. False-positive cannabis results in Italian workplace drug testing. Drug Test Analysis, v. 4, n. 2, p. 71–73, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.404
GARRET, Brandon L. Convicting the Innocent: where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011.
GARRETT, Brandon. Autopsy of a crime lab: exposing the flaws in forensics. 1. ed. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2021.
GARRETT, Brandon L.; GARDNER, Brett O.; MURPHY, Evan; GRIMES, Patrick. Judges and forensic science education: A national survey. Forensic Science International, v. 321, p. 110714, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110714
GARRETT, Brandon L.; FABRICANT, Chris M. The Myth of the Reliability Test. Fordham Law Review, v. 86, p. 1559-1599, 2018. Disponível em: <https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6587&context=faculty_scholarship>. Acesso em: 16 mai. 2023
GARRETT, Brandon L.; NEUFELD, Peter J. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful conviction. Virginia Law Review, v. 95, n. 1, p. 1–97, 2009. Disponível em: <https://www.virginialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/1-2.pdf>. Acesso em: 16 mai. 2023
GEORGIOU, N.; MORGAN, R. M.; FRENCH, J. C. Conceptualising, evaluating and communicating uncertainty in forensic science: Identifying commonly used tools through an interdisciplinary configurative review. Science and Justice, v. 60, n. 4, p. 313–336, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.04.002
GIACOMOLLI, Nereu José; AMARAL, Maria Eduarda Azambuja. A cadeia de custódia da prova na Lei no 13.964/2019. Duc in Altum Cadernos de Direito, v. 12, n. 27, p. 67-100, 2020.
GIANELLI, Paul C. Wrongful convictions and Forensic Science: the need to regulate crime labs. North Carolina Law Review, v. 86, p. 164–235, 2008.
GIANNELLI, Paul C. Forensic science: Daubert’s failure. Case Western Reserve Law Review, v. 59, p. 1–64, 2017.
GIANNELLI, Paul C. Junk Science: The Criminal Cases. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 84, n. 1, p. 105–128, 1993.
GOMES, Abel Fernandes; CHAZAN, Eduardo Leite; VIDEIRA, Renata Gil de Alcântara; ANTUNES, Rita de Cássia Alves; REGO, Roberta da Silva Dumas. Persecução penal e devido processo legal no Brasil e na Common Law tradition – análise histórica e comparativa à luz da aplicação de princípios democráticos. Revista da SJRJ, v. 22, p. 17–33, 2008.
GONÇALVES, Alana; DISSENHA, Rui Carlo. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt: um estudo da adaptação brasileira como risco potencial às garantias processuais. Revista Electrónica de Estudios Penales y de la Seguridad, n. 7, p. 1-16, 2021.
GROWNS, Bethany; KUKUCKA, Jeff. The prevalence effect in fingerprint identification: Match and non-match base-rates impact misses and false alarms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, v. 35, n. 3, p. 751-760, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3800
GUNN, John; MEVIS, Paul. Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Systems of Trial and Investigation in Criminal Procedure. In: GOETHALS, Kris (ed.). Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology in Europe. 1. ed. Antwerp: Springer International Publishing, 2018. p. 3–17.
HAACK, Susan. Irreconcilable differences: the troubled marriage of Science and Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 7, n. 1, p. 1–23, 2009.
HERDY, Rachel. Pode-se afirmar categoricamente que a bala partiu de uma arma em particular? Consultor Jurídico - Coluna Limite Penal, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-set-11/limite-penal-ciencia-armas-fogo>, Acesso em: 5 nov. 2022.
HERDY, Rachel.; DIAS, Juliana Melo. Devemos admitir provas periciais de baixa fiabilidade epistêmica? Consultor Jurídico - Coluna Limite Penal, 2021. Disponível em: <https://www.conjur.com.br/2021-mar-05/limite-penal-devemos-admitir-provas-periciais-baixa-fiabilidade-epistemica>. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2022.
HOWES, Loene M. The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research. Science & Justice, v. 55, n. 2, p. 145–154, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.11.002
IMWINKELRIED, Edward J. The admissibility of scientific evidence: exploring the significance of the distinction between foundational validity and validity as applied. Syracuse Law Review, v. 70, p. 817–849, 2020.
INSTITUTO DE DEFESA DO DIREITO DE DEFESA. Innocence Project chega ao Brasil por meio de parceria com o IDDD. Disponível em: <https://iddd.org.br/innocence-project-chega-ao-brasil-por-meio-de-parceria-com-o-iddd/>. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2022.
KAPLAN, Jacob; LING, Shichun; CUELLAR, Maria. Public beliefs about the accuracy and importance of forensic evidence in the United States. Science & Justice, v. 60, n. 3, p. 263–272, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3448526
KARAFFA, Kerry M.; PAGE, Jaimie; KOCH, Julie M. Compensating the Innocent: Perceptions of Exonerees’ Deservingness to Receive Financial Compensation for Wrongful Convictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, v. 28, n. 7, p. 710–732, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415607049
KOCH, Daniel Buhatem; TANDALO, Marina Frota; SILVA, Cláudia Fernanda Souza de Carvalho Becker. Nulidades da prova pericial pela inobservância de procedimentos técnico-científicos. Ponto de Vista Jurídico, v. 5, n. 2, p. 102–113, 2016. https://doi.org/10.33362/juridico.v5i2.1067
KOEHLER, Jonathan J. FORENSICS OR FAUXRENSICS? Ascertaining Accuracy in the Forensic Sciences. Arizona State Law Journal, v. 49, n. 4, p. 1369–1416, 2017.
KOEHLER, Jonathan J. Intuitive error rate estimates for the forensic sciences. Jurimetrics Journal, v. 57, p. 1–16, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2817443
KOPPL, Roger. How to improve forensic science. European Journal of Law and Economics, v. 20, n. 3, p. 255–286, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-4196-6
KOPPL, Roger. Organization economics explains many forensic science errors. Journal of Institutional Economics, v. 6, n. 1, p. 71–81, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137409990245
LII: LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE. Federal Rules of Evidence. Disponível em: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre>. Acesso em: 4 ago. 2021.
MARTIRE, Kristy A.; BALLANTYNE, Kaye N.; BALI, Agnes; EDMOND, Gary; KEMP, Richard I.; FOUND, Bryan. Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability. Forensic Science International, v. 302, p. 109887, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109877
MEDEIROS, Flavia. Políticas de perícia criminal na garantia dos Direitos Humanos. Disponível em: <https://memoriasdaditadura.org.br/memorias/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FES_Analise_Impunidade_.pdf>. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2022.
MIRZA, Flávio. Prova pericial e conhecimento científico: breves notas. Boletim IBCCRIM, v. 279, p. 10-11, 2016.
MNOOKIN, Jennifer L. The Uncertain Future of Forensic Science. Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, v. 147, n. 4, p. 99-118, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00523
MORELATO, Marie; BAECHLER, Simon; RIBAUX, Oliver; BEAVIS, Alison; TAHTOUH, Mark; KIRKBRIDE, Paul; ROUX, Claude; MARGOT, Pierre. Forensic intelligence framework-Part I: Induction of a transversal model by comparing illicit drugs and false identity documents monitoring. Forensic Science International, v. 236, p. 181–190, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.045
MORGAN, Ruth. Forensic science: interdisciplinary, emerging, contested. In: DAVIES, Jason P.; PACHLER, Norbert. (eds.). Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Perspectives from UCL. 1. ed. London (UK): UCL Institute of Education Press, 2018, p. 235–240.
MORGAN, Ruth M. Forensic science. The importance of identity in theory and practice. Forensic Science International: Synergy, v. 1, p. 239–242, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.09.00
MORIN, Edgard. Ciência com consciência. 14. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2010.
MOZAYANI, Ashraf; NOZIGLIA, Carla. The Forensic Laboratory Handbook. 1. ed. New Jersey: Humana Press, 2006.
MURRIE, Daniel C.; GARDNER, Brett O.; KELLEY, Sharon; DROR, Itiel E. Perceptions and estimates of error rates in forensic science: A survey of forensic analysts. Forensic Science International, v. 302, p. 109887, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109887
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press, 2009. Disponível em: <https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf>. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2022.
PALMA, Andrea Galhardo. Breve análise comparativa dos modelos devaloração e constatação da prova penal –standards probatórios – no Brasil, nos EUA ena Itália: crítica à regra beyond any reasonabledoubt ou oltre ragionevole dubbio (além da dúvida razoável). São Paulo, Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.tjsp.jus.br/download/EPM/Publicacoes/ObrasJuridicas/iv%201.pdf?d=636680453445105256>. Acesso em: 6 nov. 2022.
PRADO, Geraldo. Prova penal e sistema de controles epistêmicos: a quebra da cadeia de custódia das provas obtidas por métodos ocultos. 1. ed. São Paulo: Marcial Pons, 2014.
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (PCAST). Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, DC: Washington, DC Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2016. Disponível em: <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2022.
REID, Melanie. A CSI Story: The Past, Present, and Future of Crime Scene Collection and What Litigators Need to Know. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, v. 8, n. 2, p. 409–454, 2018.
RIBAUX, Olivier; CRISPINO, Frank; ROUX, Claude. Forensic intelligence: deregulation or return to the roots of forensic science? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, v. 47, n. 1, p. 61–71, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2014.906656
ROBERTS, Paul. Paradigms of forensic science and legal process: A critical diagnosis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, v. 370, n. 1674, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0256
ROBERTS, Paul; STOCKDALE, Michael. Introduction: forensic science, evidential reliability and institutional reform. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788111034.00007 In: ROBERTS, Paul; STOCKDALE, Michael. (eds.). Forensic science evidence and expert witness testimony. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limitade, 2018. p. 1–26.
RODRIGUES, Caio Henrique Pinke; AMARAL, Maria Eduarda Azambuja; MARIOTTO, Lívia Salviano; CASTRO, Jade Simões; MASCARELLI, Marina Enriquetto; VELHO, Jesus Antonio; BRUNI, Aline Thais. Ciência Forense ou Ciências Forenses? Uma análise conceitual. Research, Society and Development, v. 11, n. 12, 2022. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i12.34215
RODRIGUES, Claudio Vilela; DA SILVA, Márcia Terra; TRUZZI, Oswaldo Mário Serra. Perícia criminal: uma abordagem de serviços. Gestão & Produção, v. 17, n. 4, p. 843–857, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-530x2010000400016
RODRIGUES, Claudio Vilela; DE TOLEDO, José Carlos. Um método para medição de desempenho do serviço público de Perícia Criminal com base no valor. Gestão & Produção, v. 24, n. 3, p. 538–556, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2137-16
ROUX, Claude; TALBOT-WRIGHT, Benjamin; ROBERTSON, James; CRISPINO, Frank; RIBAUX, Olivier. The end of the (forensic science) world as we know it? The example of trace evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, v. 370, n. 1674, p. 20140260, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0260
ROUX, Claude; BUCHT, Rebecca; CRISPINO, Frank; DE FOREST, Peter; LENNARD, Chris; MARGOT, Pierre; MIRANDA, Michelle, D; NICDAEID, Niamh; RIBAUX, Olivier; ROSS, Alastair; WILLIS, Sheila. The Sydney Declaration – Revisiting the Essence of Forensic Science through its Fundamental Principles. Forensic Science International, v. 332, p. 111182, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111182
ROUX, Claude; CRISPINO, Franl; RIBAUX, Olivier. From Forensics to Forensic Science. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, v. 24, n. 1, p. 7–24, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2012.12035941
SANDERS, Joseph. Science, law, and the expert witness. Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 72, n. 63, p. 62–90, 2009.
SANGER, Robert M. A Scientific Approach to Scientific Evidence: A Four-Stage Rule for Admissibility and Scope. Utilizing Forensic Science in Criminal Cases, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2706986
SANGER, Robert M. Forensics: educating the lawyers. Journal of the Legal Profession, v. 43, n. 2, p. 1–28, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3303376
SECRETARIA NACIONAL DE SEGURANÇA PÚBLICA. Diagnóstico da Perícia Criminal no Brasil. Brasília. Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública, 2013. <http://www.mpsp.mp.br/portal/page/portal/documentacao_e_divulgacao/doc_biblioteca/bibli_servicos_produtos/BibliotecaDigital/BibDigitalLivros/TodosOsLivros/Diagnostico-da-pericia-criminal-no-Brasil.pdf>. Acesso em: 4 nov. 2022
SERVICK, Kelly. Reversing the legacy of junk science in the courtroom. Science, AAAS, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4158 Disponível em: < https://www.science.org/content/article/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom> Acesso em: 16 mai. 2023
SILVA, Fernando Quadros da. O juiz e a análise da prova pericial. Revista Jurídica da Procuradoria-Geral do Estado do Paraná, n. 9, p. 11–30, 2018.
SOUSA FILHO, Ademar Borges. Presunção de inocência e a doutrina da prova além da dúvida razoável na jurisdição constitucional. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 8, n. 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v8i1.685
STERN, Hal S. Statistical Issues in Forensic Science. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Applications, v. 4, p. 225-244, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statis041715-033554
SWOFFORD, Henry; CHAMPOD, Christophe. Probabilistic reporting and algorithms in forensic science: Stakeholder perspectives within the American criminal justice system. Forensic Science International: Synergy, v. 4, p. 100220, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100220
TARUFFO, Michele. A prova. Tradução de João Gabriel Couto. 1. ed. São Paulo: Marcial Pons, 2014.
TONRY, Michael. Is cross-national and comparative research on the criminal justice system useful? European Journal of Criminology, v. 12, n. 4, p. 505–516, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815581699
VÁZQUEZ, Carmen. Prova Pericial: Da Prova Científica à Prova Pericial. Tradução de Vitor de Paula Ramos. Salvador: Editora JusPodivm, 2021.
WINBURN, Allysha Powanda; CLEMMONS, Chaunesey M. J. Objectivity is a myth that harms the practice and diversity of forensic science. Forensic Science International: Synergy, v. 3, p. 100196, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100196
ZAPF, Patricia A.; DROR, Itiel E. Understanding and Mitigating Bias in Forensic Evaluation: Lessons from Forensic Science. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, v. 16, n. 3, p. 227-238, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Maria Eduarda Azambuja Amaral, Aline Thais Bruni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
