Challenges In Admissibility Of Forensic Evidence: A Comparative Analysis Of Legal Standards Across Jurisdictions

Abstract

The use of forensic evidence is crucial in criminal justice practice while its application is still contested and remains raising issues of admissibility in trials so yielding formal and informal disparities that encountered effects on judicial processes across jurisdictions. This paper explores admissibility standards in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany to determine how such disparities affect evidence credibility and case outcomes, especially with the new forms of forensic such as digital forensics. In the current research, employing legal qualitative analysis of standards, expert interviews, and quantitative analysis of criminal cases, the study concludes that the higher standards in the U.S. lead to higher exclusion rates of forensic evidence, which in turn lead to higher acquittals. The standards in the U.K. and Germany are more flexible and admit more evidence but less reliable ones as well. The evidence indicates that international judicial reliability could be improved by harmonizing core elements, including scientific reliability and expert qualifications. Such findings are beneficial for policy makers and practitioners who are interested in the direction of improving the judicial system, making it more fair and accurate all around the world while taking into consideration the practicality of the judicial system.