This study is conducted to explore the ways to strengthen the forensic science in Korean Criminal Justice System in Korea. The focus was forensic science practices from the stage of the collection of forensic evidence in crime scene investigation to the analysis and interpretation of forensic evidence, and adjudication, with particular attention paid to the danger of miscarriage of justice and ways to avoid the miscarriage of justice in criminal justice system. Broadly speaking, forensic science is the process using science to resolve legal issues. The tool and techniques to preserve, acquire, and analyze forensic evidence has been developed rapidly, and forensic science is a broad discipline governing diverse forms of evidence. In the current study, we focus on the DNA and fingerprint evidence, the two most frequently used evidence.

This study consists of two parts. The first part presents an overview of forensic science evidence analysis in criminal justice system with particular attention paid to the possibility of miscarriage of justice, such as error and bias in the analysis of forensic evidence and misinterpretation of forensic science analysis results in courts. The second part of the current study explores ways to strengthen forensic science in Korean criminal justice system by reflecting examples from three common law jurisdictions, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The first part of the study, forensic science and miscarriage of justice, is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 provided an overview of the study and the structure of the paper. Chapter 2, admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence in courts, outlined legal approaches on admissibility and reliability the quality of scientific evidence and its analyzed outcomes in court. The discussion on Japan and German legal perspectives is also provided for comparative purpose. Chapter 3, perception of forensic science evidence in courts, dealt with the ways to enhance the understanding of forensic science evidence among legal professionals, such as judges, jurors, lawyers, and other legally trained professionals. The workshop offered by conference and reference manual (Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence) produced by Federal Judicial Center is introduced. Chapter 4, forensic science laboratories, briefly described the main forensic science laboratories in Korea and other European countries, such as Netherland, France, and European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). Chapter 5 reviewed the forensic science and miscarriage of justice focusing on the process of evidence analysis, and selected case studies are provided. In addition, accreditation scheme for forensic science laboratories in Korea, Europe, and U.S. are also illustrated. Chapter 6, forensic science and miscarriage of justice focusing on the scientific evidence examiners, examined the empirical studies on the forensic science evidence examiners focusing on the possibility of committing error and bias in the analysis of forensic evidence and/or misinterpretation of forensic science analysis results in courts. This chapter described the survey and in-depth interview among Korean forensic science examiners. The survey and in-depth interview had three purposes - uation on their job satisfaction and stress, perception on the error in the analysis of the scientific evidence and their reaction to erroneous analysis, and the experience of expert testimony in courts. Chapter 7 concluded the report of part 1 by drawing together the content of the preceding chapters and proposing recommendations for practice and policies to enhance the performance of forensic evidence examiners and the appropriate understanding of their findings in courts among judges and jurors.

The second part of the current study explores ways to strengthen forensic science in Korean criminal justice system by reflecting examples from three common law jurisdictions, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The second part of the report is also comprised of seven chapters. Chapter 1 provided an introduction and an overview of strengths and weaknesses in inquisitorial versus adversarial criminal justice systems when forensic evidence is introduced, particularly with respect to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice. A brief synopsis of the development of fingerprint and DNA evidence was provided. Key similarities and differences between these two types of forensic evidence were illustrated.

Chapter 2, Empirical Issues for Fingerprint Evidence, explored the scientific foundations of forensic fingerprint evidence and its interpretation. The chapter outlined current fingerprint identification practices and then reviewed and discussed the empirical evidence that exists from rigorous experimentation within the fingerprint domain. Specifically, the chapter highlighted the issues of bias and error in the analysis and verification of fingerprint samples and matching techniques. Chapter 3, Empirical Issues for DNA Evidence, outlined current DNA profile analysis and matching techniques and discussed the extensive literature on empirical issues involving DNA evidence that arise prior to the presentation of this evidence in court. The chapter summarised a vast body of literature on DNA sample collection, DNA laboratory analysis and DNA profile interpretation. Errors which can occur during each of these three stages of DNA evidence processing were specified, including the reliability of the DNA technology commonly utilised, complications arising from less than ideal forensic samples and sample contamination, and the potential for bias in DNA profile interpretation.
Chapter 4, Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Common Law Jurisdictions:
Australia, England and Wales, and New Zealand, outlined legal approaches to admitting and regulating the quality of forensic scientific evidence for fingerprints and DNA profiling evidence in the three target jurisdictions. The focus was on standards for admissibility, reliability, and the effectiveness of traditional legal procedural safeguards to avoid miscarriages of justice.

Similarities and differences in approaches applied to fingerprints and DNA evidence were noted. In addition, this chapter described the extent to which the Frye and Daubert standards from US federal law have been implemented in each of the noted jurisdictions, whether DNA or fingerprint evidence are admissible or reliable under the existing standards, and reliance on cross-examination, rebuttal experts, jury directions, and jury deliberation to avoid investigative and evidentiary errors in relation to forensic evidence.

Chapter 5 is comprised of a series of selected case studies from each of the relevant jurisdictions to demonstrate key issues that arise when fingerprint and DNA evidence is introduced in court. The case studies highlighted several of the issues and potential errors that were discussed in the previous chapters. Specifically, the case studies are examined investigative, scientific evidentiary and errors that may contribute to miscarriages of justice. Chapter 6, Perceptions of Forensic Scientific Evidence in Court, reviewed the empirical literature on the perceptions of forensic evidence by triers of fact, including jurors, judges and other legally trained professionals. Since Korea has relatively few jury trials per year, this chapter highlighted findings from studies which have investigated how judges and legal professionals perceive forensic evidence. This chapter examined the influence of media and television on expectations surrounding forensic evidence, lay understanding and interpretation of forensic evidence, including ways in which evidence may be manipulated to appear more or less impressive to jurors, and ways that fact finders can be assisted in their uation of forensic evidence. Chapter 7 concluded the report by drawing together the content of the preceding chapters and proposing specific recommendations for practice and policy that will assist in enhancing the performance of forensic scientists and the appropriate use of their findings in legal settings. The recommendations were organized according to their application to (a) data collection, analysis and interpretation of forensic evidence; (b) legal standards and practice; and (c) presentation of forensic scientific evidence in legal proceedings. The recommendations were based on, and supported by, significant reports and scholarly articles relevant to the topics addressed in this report.