Drug toxicology in criminal trials is important in giving scientific evidence as far as drug exposure and drug impairment, cause of death, and intent. Nevertheless, application of toxicological evidence in acts of law poses serious limitations, especially in making a decision between the scientific authenticity and legal measures of proof and admissibility. The review article investigates the interface between drug toxicology and criminal law, specifically the usage of toxicological evidence, its formation, interpretation and assessment in a courtroom. Many of the problems of scientific interest cover reliability of the analysis, detectability, postmortem redistribution, drug-drug interactions, and presence versus functional impairment. Likewise, the article will discuss such evidentiary standards as relevance, reliability, and expert testimony requirements in different legal frameworks, like Daubert and Frye. Among the common pitfalls identified in the review are a dependence on the numbers of drug concentrations with no proper pharmacological background, and the disconnect between the toxicological community and the legal community. There is also ethics, including prejudice, openness, and constraints of the forensic system. This article suggests that more specific guidelines, an interdisciplinary approach, and better judicial, attorney, and forensic expert training are necessary by synthesizing the existing scientific research and judicial decisions. The alignment between scientific rigor and legal expectations cannot be reinforced, and it is necessary to make sure that the toxicological evidence leads to fair, correct, and just decisions in the case of criminal trials.
Chatterjee et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: