K

Notes on Forensics, Expertise, CSI Effect, and Eyewitness Testimony — Seminar Summary

Assessment and course context

  • Week nine of trimester; only 3 weeks remaining including this week.
  • Focus on experts, laypeople, and forensics within the criminal legal system (CLS).
  • Assessment 83 due today at 8\,\text{PM} with a grace period until 11:59\,\text{PM}.
  • If late questions arise about assessment 83, contact the instructor (chat or email).
  • Brief touch on assessment task four (AT4) coming up; due on October\ 1; differs from previous assessments.
  • AT4 is more like a traditional argumentative/critical essay; requires substantial backing by research.
  • AT4 specifics:
    • Minimum of 8 academic/reputable sources.
    • Answer one of a set of questions provided on the unit site (Assessment tab).
    • Structure guidance provided (diagram likened to a caterpillar).
  • If unsure about AT4 aspects, review the slide and ask questions; more detail will be provided next week.
  • Helpful to study the caterpillar-structured essay diagram and discuss structure in seminar.
  • The seminar invites questions via chat or email; opportunities to discuss any concerns about academic writing.

Forensics, expertise, and the CLS: key concepts introduced

  • Forensics as a form of expertise used in the criminal legal system; focus on the latter two terms: laypeople and experts in forensics.
  • Example case discussed: the mushroom case (sentencing remarks released this week); sentencing remarks touch on sentencing principles, victim impact statements, and related aspects.
  • The sentencing remarks were livestreamed by the Supreme Court of Victoria (one of the first livestreamed cases); livestreaming chosen by the judge for certain purposes (including sentencing rights).
  • Deterrence discussed: general and specific condemnation of acts; implications for sentencing and social messaging.

Primary forensic functions within the CLS

  • Forensic functions span multiple domains and entries of evidence:
    • DNA evidence (highly influential in trials).
    • Fingerprinting (often paired with DNA; sometimes distinct from DNA).
    • Preservation of physical evidence from crime scenes.
    • Documentation and reporting of evidence.
    • Visual and physical representations:
    • Diagrams, photographs, 3D models of crime scenes.
    • Handwriting analysis (graphography): historical activity in criminology; Gianni Lombroso associated with graphography; significant early attempt to infer intent/emotional state from handwriting; later challenged.
    • Bloodstain analysis; fire and explosion analysis (arson forensics) to determine origin, accelerants, and causation.
    • Trace forensics: plant material, biological material (hair, sweat, etc.)
    • Firearms and ballistics analysis: trajectory and firearm linkage.
    • Wound and bite mark analysis (when relevant in violent crimes).
    • Cyber and digital forensics: traces of online activity, movements, and digital footprints.
  • Forensic evidence supports multiple modes of evidence in legal processes and may enter via investigations or trials, with varying admissibility.
  • The discussion acknowledged that forensics comprises diverse techniques, each with different strengths and limitations.
  • Example: arson analysis may distinguish accelerants and natural causes; DNA/fingerprint analysis may connect a suspect to a scene; handwriting analysis stems from historical practices but is controversial today.

Stages and purposes of forensic involvement in the CLS

  • Forensic involvement occurs in multiple stages:
    • Investigative stage: police use forensic science to identify suspects/victims and gather evidence.
    • Trial stage: forensic results become evidence to support or challenge testimony; assist in establishing place, time, and actions.
    • Admissibility considerations: not all forensic results are admissible; standards govern what can enter as evidence.
  • Core purposes of forensics in the CLS:
    • Support the case against the accused and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt (but careful about the burden of proof).
    • Provide objective or semi-objective data to corroborate or challenge witness testimony.
  • Real-world nuance:
    • Forensics may identify suspects or victims through DNA, trace evidence, or ballistic linkage.
    • In practice, not all forensic findings are decisive; some may be contested or contested by defense.
  • Public perception vs. reality:
    • Popular culture often overemphasizes forensic certainty (CSI effect) vs. the actual limits and potential errors in forensic science.

Public perception and considerations: usefulness, limitations, and risks

  • Initial impressions: forensic sciences are helpful for gathering evidence, identifying who was at a crime scene, and supporting or clarifying testimony.
  • DNA evidence and jury impact:
    • DNA evidence can be highly persuasive and increase conviction rates when presented by prosecutors.
    • Studies indicate that juries may convict even when DNA evidence is weak, simply due to its presence; raises concerns about the standard of proof and potential overreliance.
  • Application to specific offenses:
    • DNA evidence is particularly influential in sexual violence cases where proof burden is high.
  • Broader implications for the CLS and justice system:
    • Forensics can contribute to wrongful convictions if misapplied or misinterpreted.
    • A heavy emphasis on forensics may divert resources from prevention and rehabilitation, underscoring the need for balanced governance of crime control spending.
  • Privacy and civil liberties concerns:
    • Biometric data (DNA, fingerprints, facial features) on national databases raises concerns about privacy and potential misuse.
    • Facial recognition technology has raised issues of misidentification bias, particularly affecting people of color and non-white individuals; examples discussed include UK Notting Hill Festival deployments with biased performance.
    • Data breaches and regulation gaps heighten concerns about intimate data security and potential misuse.
    • The potential for a power imbalance: government access to biometric data can influence perceptions of safety, autonomy, and civil liberties even for law-abiding citizens.
  • Broader social implications:
    • Forensics and tech-driven processes shape the boundaries between public safety and individual privacy in everyday life.
    • Ongoing debates about regulation, consent, and the appropriate scope of surveillance and data collection.

The CSI effect: media influence on expectations of forensic evidence

  • Definition and context:
    • Forensic science shows (e.g., CSI) create public expectations that almost every case will involve sophisticated scientific evidence (DNA, trace analysis, advanced imaging).
    • The CSI effect can distort juror expectations about what evidence is available and what constitutes proof, potentially altering verdicts.
  • Video excerpt lessons:
    • Forensic scientists acknowledge the balance between objective data and subjective interpretation; not all conclusions are definitive, and misinterpretations can occur.
    • Jurors hold substantial power and must critically assess the weight and relevance of forensic evidence.
  • Potential negative effects:
    • Overreliance on forensic evidence can lead to overconfidence or misinterpretation, contributing to wrongful convictions or unwarranted conclusions.
    • It can create pressure to obtain high-tech evidence even when not necessary or available.
  • Potential positive effects:
    • Heightened funding for forensic labs and more thorough investigations driven by demand for higher standards.
    • Improved juror decision-making through increased transparency about what evidence can and cannot show.
  • Equity considerations:
    • Access to forensic testing varies by jurisdiction; unequal funding may produce inequitable outcomes across regions.
    • Victims and survivors may benefit from robust forensic investigation, but disparities in resources can create inconsistent justice outcomes.
  • Considerations for practice:
    • Debates about how to train jurors or provide pre-trial instructions to mitigate overexpectations while preserving legitimate evidentiary value.
    • Cautions about not overpromising forensic certainty and ensuring balanced, contextual interpretation of evidence.

Eyewitness testimony and the reliability of memory

  • Purpose of the eyewitness exercise:
    • A short video-based exercise (roughly 2\,\text{minutes}) to illustrate the limits of human memory and recall under stress and distraction.
  • Key observations from the activity:
    • Participants noted details like the crossing, traffic, color of clothing, number and behavior of cyclists, and event sequence, illustrating how memory can be partial and selective.
    • Specific questions highlighted how easily details can be missed or misremembered (e.g., signage, route numbers, colors, and vehicle details).
  • Reflective points on eyewitness recall:
    • Memory is influenced by attention, salience of events, and cognitive load; minor details are prone to error.
    • Trauma and emotional context can both enhance or impair recall; anxiety and stress can distort perception.
    • Language barriers and translation needs can affect accuracy of testimonies.
    • The reliability of eyewitness testimony is often challenged by cross-examination and independent corroboration; juries rely on multiple sources to build a coherent narrative.
  • Broader implications for the CLS:
    • Eyewitness evidence should be integrated with forensic findings and other corroborating data to minimize wrongful convictions.
    • Courts consider the potential for errors in memory and the influence of external factors on recall when evaluating credibility.

Synthesis and implications for practice: improving reliability and managing expectations

  • Ranking and critical evaluation:
    • Students are encouraged to rank forensic functions by perceived reliability and to consider how those perceptions influence decision-making.
  • Potential improvements to forensic practice:
    • Methods to improve reliability by strengthening cross-validation between forensic findings and eyewitness testimony.
    • Strategies to better merge subjective (interpretive, human) and objective (scientific) components of evidence.
    • Recognition that forensic science is not perfectly objective and involves interpretation and error margins.
  • Mitigating the CSI effect and promoting fair trials:
    • Consider training or instructions for jurors to calibrate expectations about forensic evidence and its limitations.
    • Explore policies to ensure equitable access to forensic testing and evidence across jurisdictions.
    • Encourage transparent reporting of limitations and uncertainty in forensic conclusions.

Practical takeaways and next steps

  • Prepare for AT4 by identifying credible sources (at least 8) and selecting a question from the unit site.
  • Approach the essay with a clear structure (as guided by the caterpillar diagram) to balance argument, evidence, and critical analysis.
  • Consider the ethical and practical implications of forensic technologies in modern governance and policing (privacy, bias, and civil liberties).
  • Reflect on how eyewitness memory interacts with forensic evidence, and how the CLS can minimize wrongful outcomes.
  • Look ahead to next week: discussion on failures of justice and wrongful convictions; relate to the role of forensics and eyewitness testimony in those failures.

Administrative reminders

  • Assessment 83 due today at 8\,\text{PM}; grace period until 11:59\,\text{PM}.
  • AT4 due on ext{October }1 at 8\,\text{PM}; minimum 8 sources.
  • Next week: topic on failures of justice and potential wrongful convictions.
  • If you have questions or want to discuss AT4 details, reach out during the seminar or by email.