CJ 210 Forensic Science- Week 1

various notes and definitions

relevance

concept of admissibility: main question to ask: is the evidence relevant to deciding whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

admissibility

whether the jury should hear and consider the evidence

“forensic science”

forensic= “forum”, “public”,

forensic science is the science related to the legal investigations and court proceedings

• this is only applied, not pure science

what does forensic science do in the legal process?

accusation, investigation, resolution

• a legal process starts with an accusation

• the investigation happens

  • all evidence comes rom here

• resolution happens (in these cases a trial)

  • jurors/jury hear and see the evidence- from witness, lay testimony (objectively what the witness saw or heard), expert testimony(an expert can be called in to help identify and explain some evidence- such as medical examination, ballistics, fire, explosion and arson, bloodstain analysis, etc)

  • jury decides if the evidence provided proves that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

probative value

does the evidence (dis)prove that the defendant committed the crime?

Rule 402- general admissibility of Relevant evidence (federal handbook)

evidence is admissible unless the following provides/says otherwise:

• the US constitution,

• federal statute,

• the other rules,

• other rules prescribed by Supreme Court

irrelevant evidence is NOT admissible

What can be considered irrelelvant?

• testimony from an astrologst stating position of stars and moon at time of crime

• testimony that most crimes are committed by men rather than women

• testimony that the defendant has reputation of being immoral

• testimony that the defendant is of particular religion/athiest

  • some evidence might play to jurors emotions (prejudicial)

  • some evidence might prove guilt/innocence

Rule 403- Excluding evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons

The court may exclude relevant evidence if probative value is outweighed by: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or presenting cumulative evidence needlessly

Judge as “gatekeeper”

• the judge decided what evidence the jury hears/sees

  • has responsibility to determine what is admissible or not

  • judge decides all legal issues

Rule 702- Expert witness

a witness qualifies as an expert in knowledge, skill, expierence, training or eduction may testify with for form opinion or otherwise

• experts specialized knowedge will help understand the evidence and determine the facts

• testimony based on fact

• testimony that is a prduct of reliable principles and methods

• experts opinion reflects reliable application of principles and methods to facts of case

what constitutes as evidence?

• witness testimony

• written statements

• audio/video recordings,

• photographs

• physical objects,

• digitial evidence(data sharing, media, etc)

• scientific findings

• demonstrative evidence

hearsay

any statement made outside of court that is “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”

• generally inadmissible due to jury being unable to form an opinion which means that reliability of statement is questioned

• exceptions included

• the defendants out of court statements are excluded ENTIRELY

• fifth amendment is invoked here

exclusionary rule

• can deter police from enacting illegal searches

• defendant may only seek suppression in violation of their own right (4th(warrantless search and seizure), 6th(attorney), 8th(right against self incrimination))

• fruit of the poisonous tree can apply

traditional crime laboratory

• single lab/system, made up of scientists analyzing evidence in controlled substances, trace, biology, toxicology, latent prints, questioned documents, firearms, crime scene etc

  • increasingly specializing in one area

• can be privately or publicly owned

  • publicly owned= organized at county, city, state, or federal level

  • no access to crime lab in own level = access to higher level lab

medicolegal investigator (and fragmented system)

• medical examiner or coroner

  • responsible for determining homicide, suicide, accident- cause of death in general

  • assess scene of death, examine body, perform autopsy, or other procedures

• training varies- medical examiners have medical degrees; coroners are elected officials who might not have medical training

  • efforts made to switch all systems nationally to medical examiner (only 11 now have coroner systems)

  • variability in accreditation of death investigation systems

  • fundings vary nationally- mostly comes from tax revenues

• fragmented because of state and local entities

what process does analyzed evidence follow?

1. investigation

2. individualization,

3. association

4. reconstruction

• results sent to law enforcement officials

scientific advances in crime labs

• cause concerns for allocation of resources and training

  • can cause backlogged cases- less sufficient resources, less efficiency, less effectiveness

    • concerns about speedy trials

  • evidence mis-properly handled, given false significance, or given bias/incompetence= jury can be misled= wrongful conviction or exoneration'

    • juries lose confidence= valid and relevant evidence becomes discounted= innocent person wronged'; guilty go free

forensic science categories

wide variability in techniques, reliability, research, published material, general accessibility, and methodologies

• general toxicology,

• firearms/toolmarks,

• questioned documents

• trace evidence

• controlled substances

• biological/serology evidence(including DNA analysis)

• fire debris/arson analysis

• impression evidence

• blood pattern analysis

• crime scene investigation

• medicolegal death investigation

• digital evidence

  • largely empirical based- some interpretation, pattern, lab etc

pressures of forensic system

• backlogged cases: risen dramatically

  • exacerbated by demands of quick results (technology)

  • now question is what gets tested and what doesn’t

    • prolongs trials and delays

  • 
    

DNA analysis as new standard and its issues

• strict standards required for DNA analysis to be adopted widely

• guidelines created in 1990- created Combined DNA index (CODIS)- allows labs of all levels to exchange and compare DNA files

• has caused a tremendous and dramatic growth in the use of DNA analysis in investigations

  • concerns: likelihood of matching DNA prints to wrong person= statistical calculations and meticulous retesting

• Presidents DNA initiative: increase funding, training and assistance

  • high scrutiny and high support

• ONLY COMPRISES ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF OF CASE WORK

  • DNA evidence not always relevant to an investigation

questionable or questioned science

• rise in DNA analysis caused reevaluation of older cases that retained biological evidence

  • acknowledged that faulty science has/ can lead to wrongful convictions and freedom

• forensic tests have never been subject to the same scientific scrutiny as other sciences

  • limitations and restrictions were not first priority when testing new techniques for SPECIFIC crime scenes

• fundamental requirements of science not met for some non-DNA tests

  • fundamental requirements of science= reproduction, validity, falsifiability

  • fingerprint analysis has been questioned

    • can it reliably (ish) determine that its from the same finger that committed the crime?

    • considered subjective and unverifiable now

• individualized testing:

  • unique object at scene of crime compared with population data, variation of attributes, testing, probability testing etc

  • results need to be made public- public scrutiny helps lower error rate

• few funding sources exist - studies are made without input from scientific community= lack of enforceable standards for interpretation of data

errors and fraud

• integrity of crime labs are/have been questioned:

  • lax standards shown through publicized cases

  • lack of proper education and training

• INNOCENCE PROJECT:

  • noted (un)intentional lab errors:

    • contamination, mislabeling of evidence (lab errors)

    • (forensic reports errors)- misinterpretation of evidence, falsified reports

    • suppression of evidence, false testimonies (courtroom)

• norms of science (rigorous, cautious, open ended interpretation of data) ignored in this community

  • concern of lack of data on accuracy of analyses, potential of bias

• ***errors can still occur, nothing is 100% accurate

  • concern is only about those that say that their procedures and tests are always accurate

• needs standard settings, certification, and accreditation of labs

CSI effect

• named after a drama about crime solving

  • translates to real life jurors being influenced by them:

    • they think that forensic evidence needs to be presented in a visually appealing way

    • more critical of evidence, less willing to convict (citing reasonable doubt) and believe other evidence is available

    • is changing manner of how evidence is presented in court

  • increased pressure and attention

    • is it giving more credit than where credit is due?

    • can it cause a miscarriage of justice?

    • 
      

incompatible automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS)

• AFIS adopted in 70s and 80s as an improvement to much more efficiently manage prints and identified people

  • operational performance has dimmed- can’t share across systems from different vendors, and some areas are limited by regional networks- communication is limited

  • some areas are not fully automated- manually inputting information every time takes time

  • can share and access across different levels

growing importance of forensic science to homeland security

• constant need to assure that crime labs (public) have sufficient supply of trained officials

• demands will increase if an event happens (manmade or natural)

  • forensic science disciplines essential to response components in case of mass fatalities

admission of forensic science in litigation

• forensic science disciples essential servants to legal system

  • system is establish validity of approach, accuracy of conclusions is flawed

• legal system is unequipped to deal with problems of forensic science disciplines

  • judicial review is not the answer

• tremendous resources must be devoted in order to improve the community