ABSTRACT
This chapter investigates the emergence of forensic toxicology as a new evidence practice at the intersection of scientific and legal contexts in the nineteenth century. Forensic toxicology as a branch of both legal medicine and analytical chemistry was developed as a field of practice to provide specific evidence for courts of law. Toxicological experts’ legal testimonies allow for reflecting on evidence practices as negotiation practices, since their choice of methods had to deal with the materiality of the poison, while producing results that were easily understandable and hard to challenge. Using case studies from the German states, the chapter argues that this task was not only achieved by reproducing material evidence, but also through the way chemical practices were presented in the courtroom, which mirrored other types of judicial evidence, most notable eyewitness accounts, indicating the co-constructive power of the judiciary on scientific evidence practices. Whenever possible, experts tried to rely on the description of practices rather than their explanation, trying to conserve the performative character of the analysis in their presentation. Additionally, in the somewhat rare cases of expert disagreements, it was likewise practice that was the focus of criticism. This allowed for individualizing analytical mistakes, while at the same time stabilizing the status of forensic toxicology in the courtroom.
