Document Type
Working Paper
Publication Date
2026
Subjects
Bloodstain, Analysis, Courts
Abstract
Despite its long history of admission throughout North America, there appears to be no published Canadian case subjecting bloodstain pattern analysis to the special scrutiny Canadian law demands for novel or contested scientific evidence. Instead, courts have admitted the evidence based largely on the training and experience of forensic examiners, taking it for granted that the field is sufficiently reliable. However, the application of the White Burgess framework reveals that there are serious and severe concerns about the underlying scientific validity of the technique which should render it generally inadmissible. At Stage One of White Burgess, bloodstain pattern analysis fails to meet the threshold reliability requirement for contested science because recent studies have revealed very high levels of error, ranging from thirteen to thirty-two percent, there are few peer-reviewed studies establishing the scientific validity of the technique, and when the relevant scientific community is properly defined, bloodstain pattern analysis has not achieved scientific consensus. At Stage Two of White Burgess, bloodstain pattern analysis fails the cost-benefit analysis because its lack of discipline standards and high vulnerability to contextual bias significantly reduce its probative value such that it is outweighed by the danger that the evidence will be misused and distort the fact-finding process. Because bloodstain pattern analysis encompasses a range of conclusions, courts must assess reliability at the level of the claim being made, not at the level of the discipline, to determine if examiner conclusions are supportable given what we know about the significant limitations of the discipline.
Citation Details
Sara Gordon, "Bloodstain Pattern Analysis and the Gatekeeping Role of Canadian Courts" Canadian Bar Review (forthcoming in 2026) .