Forensic pathology interpretation and wrongful convictions in criminal justice

Forensic Pathology as Scientific Evidence

Forensic Pathology is generally understood as having to do with the investigation of causation of injuries or death as a legal requirement. In the pursuit of this, pathologists usually investigate injury or death scenes and other relevant records to ascertain the cause of death.

Practically, forensic pathology incorporates the performance of post-mortem examination, which is an examination of body tissues and organs as well as investigations such as X-rays and toxicology testing. Forensic pathology makes it possible to interpret such results and reveal cause of end point of death as required by the law.

Interpreting Evidence

The results driven from forensic pathology are bound to be subjected to interpretations. The body can transform during the process of death or after, this transformation or changes are referred to as post-mortem changes or "artefacts," these changes can be misinterpreted as ailment or injuries that took place when the body was alive.[footnoteRef:1] It is also possible that the body's position at death in relation to gravity may cause lividity that looks like bruising during post-mortem. Nonetheless, the body's handling after death is also most likely to lead to misinterpretations. Ideally it is the pathologist responsibility and duty to properly interpret the autopsy results to ascertain occurrence of artefacts and their relevance to the cause of death. [1: Goudge, S.T. (2008). Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. Qubec: Ministry of the Attorney General.]

There have been cases where mistinterpretation of results have led to wrongful convictions, one such case is that of Sherry Sherret-Robinson.[footnoteRef:2] In this case the pathologist reported that the child had died as a result of asphyxia and asserted that the injuries were consistent. She was sentenced to one year in prison and lost custody of her elder son. After a review was conducted by a group of pathologist, new evidence pointed at a normal developing cranial suture as opposed to skull fracture and that haemorrhages that previously appeared on the child's neck were actually artefacts related to dissections from the post-mortem. The review further revealed that there was no swelling of the child's brain. The pathologists discovered that the cause of death was accidental asphyxial and not an intentional act. This forced the Crown to allow appeal, which led to removal of the conviction and acquittal entered. [2: R. v. Sherret-Robinson, [2009] O.J. No. 5312 . (n.d.).]

Relationship between Forensic Pathology and the Criminal Justice System

The relationship between forensic pathology and the criminal justice system can be streamlined in three areas. First, communication is an important aspect of investigations. Since criminal cases are handled by non-medical professionals, they definitely have limited knowledge of pathology. Therefore, it is important to ensure that pathologists communicate accurately so that the information is understood and helpful to the involved parties in the criminal justice system. Second, it is important for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is criminality. Despite the fact that this covers all the evidence presented and not in pieces, there is a possibility of pressure from the criminal justice system on pathologists for certainty leading to violation of confidence. It is also impossible for pathologists to actualize their levels of confidence in ways that make scientific sense as well as that can be used in the criminal justice system. Third, the must be reliability of the testimony given. Testimony given in regard to a case that is under investigation must adhere to set preconditions for admissibility. There is a possibility of inaccuracy or inconsistency of opinion evidence or testimony. Therefore it is critical for the criminal justice system to ensure that it gets "reliable" scientific opinion evidence that can further support the forensic opinion evidence. In this regard the criminal justice system led by the courts need only to assess the reliability of forensic pathology opinions before admitting it as evidence.