Certificate of Proficiency in Digital Evidence & eDiscovery Law Practice in Nigeria

Weekly training modules are based on the textbook: DIGITAL EVIDENCE & eDISCOVERY LAW PRACTICE IN NIGERIA by the Convener of the course Emeka Arinze Esq, LLM, M.I.T (info-tech), CBSP (Certified Biometric & Surveillance Professional, CDEA (Certified Digital Evidence Analyst), CCI (Certified Cybercrime Investigator), CFP (Certified Forensic Professional).

Learn More About Emeka Arinze

WEEK

43

5 hours to complete
Admissibility of Forensic Expert Evidence in Court. See Chapter 43 of the book for further reading

It is long established, that when the bar and the bench uncritically accept the validity of an established scientific paradigm, they make the same mistake as uncritical scientists. With the innovative scientific and technical evidence now making their entry into our courtrooms, especially in election petitions and criminal cases, much of the difficulty encountered by courts, when faced with such scientific evidence, lies not necessarily in a lack of understanding of the underlying science, but in the task of choosing between competing scientific explanations tendered by individuals who seek to wear the mantle of experts.

With rare exceptions, neither prosecutors nor forensic experts would want to convict an innocent person. Nevertheless, as various studies suggest, courts cannot ordinarily rely on forensic scientists to present reliable and unbiased testimony. It is on record that many frequently used forensic techniques have not been proved reliable and have high rates of error when tested. Even when forensic experts use reliable techniques, testimony based on these techniques is often flawed.

The Focus of this Weekly Module

While many lawyers and judges may not be able to distinguish credible forensic testimony from the erroneous, the weight it may have over the ultimate verdict, is immense. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results, mixed up samples, contaminated specimens, hidden exculpatory evidence or reported results when testing had not been conducted. For these reasons and many more, this weekly module places emphases on the admissibility process of forensic expert evidence in court: the need for caution and the Gatekeeper Role for the Trial Judge.

Gains and Benefit

On completion of the lecture as espoused in the video, reading activity, quiz and assessment, you will be able to understand:

  • the gatekeeper role for the trial judge;
  • the development and the evolving standards of admissibility of scientific evidence;
  • the standard and criteria for evaluating scientific evidence for admissibility: the Daubert trilogy and
  • the Daubert decision and its influence in other foreign jurisdictions
1 Video (Total 30 min), 1 reading, 1 quiz, 1 assignment SEE ALL
1 video
Admissibility of Forensic Expert Evidence in Court
1 readings
Module Guide
1 quiz
Activity - Answer a 30 min question & answer test
1 assignment
Assignment title goes here