Andrew Mallard Case Study

Imagine spending a quarter of one’s life in prison for a crime one didn’t commit. This is what happened to Michael Morton back on February 17, 1987, when he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife even though there wasn’t real evidence linking him to the murder. There was no scientific evidence, no eyewitness, no murder weapon, or a believable motive. He was their only suspect, and the only thing they had on him that made him look guilty was the statement of the medical examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo who placed Christine Morton’s time of death at 1:15 AM that morning before Michael left for work. The medical testimony had convinced the jurors that the wife had died while Michael was still in the house. Christine died of eight

The body of this paper will examine the case of Pamela Foddrill and compare what happened in that real criminal investigation to the theory of criminal investigation discussed in our course textbook, Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science. I will first examine the forensics evidence and

The outcome of the case was Matthew Holding, the man accused of the double murder of his grandmother and mother, was found guilty by the evidence that the Forensic Soil Science team of South Australia, known as, “Centre for Australian Forensic Soil Science”, provided. The team concluded matches of the soil found on the shovel from the trunk of his car, that Matthew used to buried his mother and grandmother with the soil where the bodies were found.

In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.

Forensic science and law are often seen as two opposing disciplines; forensic science is often presumed to be factual and law can be interpreted in multiple ways. Science and law reach conclusions in different ways which is an issue. Due to these differences, miscommunication is often the cause for miscarriages of justice. In order to address this problem, people working in the criminal justice system should have more knowledge of forensic science. There are many factors that contribute to the lack of understanding between forensic science and the people involved in the court process. Firstly, the adversarial model will be discussed in relation to how these procedures prevent effective communication between forensic evidence and lawyers. Secondly, the role that expert witnesses play in the presentation of scientific evidence and how jurors play a role in interpreting their evidence, will be considered. Thirdly it will be argued that lawyers and judges lack adequate knowledge of forensic science that is needed to conduct accurate trials. Lastly, possible solutions to improve the communication between forensic science and the actors involved in the criminal justice system. Juries, lawyers and judges should be more educated in understanding forensic science.

In the case of Lobato v. the State of Nevada, it is hard to see how someone could be convicted with evidence that does not make very much sense at all. My groups responsibility was to cover the prosecution side and five pieces of evidence of the case using the information from the news article by Joshua Longobardy titled, “Kirsten Blaise Lobato is accused in a gruesome slaying. Did she do it?”. Upon the detective arriving to the scene of the crime, they removed the debris that covered the body from complete view. This debris included a full sheet of cardboard with a bloody footprint on it and a clear plastic bag wrapped around the groin region. Once this was removed it was discovered that the penis had been sliced off from the base, as well as six of his teeth were found near his body. After several days they were able to identify the man as Duran Bailey, a 44-year-old black male. Another piece of evidence recovered at first with Baileys personal belongings was a piece of chewed gum. When the detectives called Lobato in for questioning, she gave them a statement of how she pulled a knife on a man who tried to attack her. This statement however was for a completely different altercation than what the police were questioning for. Other evidence that came into question were the tire impressions near the entrance of the enclosure, fingerprints lifted from the dumpster, and a foreign piece of hair on Baileys groin region. The argument being made from

This flaw affects an individual’s life drastically because it causes them to loose so many years of their life behind prison bars for a crime they did not commit. There are many reasons for why the Canadian Court system has the flaw of wrongful convictions such as: eyewitness misidentification, where the witness may claim to have seen something but their minds understand the situations wrongs, or like in Milgaard’s case, witnesses may give false eyewitness identification, just like John did, stating he had seen Milgaard stab the nurse. Error in forensic science is another reason for wrongful convictions. Just like in Truscott’s case, during the time, there was not enough science knowledge to investigate Lynne Harper’s body, and the found information was false evidence. False testimony is a major factor in wrongful convictions because when someone gives false testimonies, they make the case even more difficult for the wrongly accused person. In Milgaard's case, his friends who gave false testimony, switching up the story of what had actually happened the night of the murder, was a major reason why Milgaard had to serve sentence for a crime he did not commit. Tunnel vision was a major factor in Truscott’s case that caused him to be sentenced. The police only focused on him as a suspect and did not regard anything else or try to investigate upon anything

This case is also of interest because the actual perpetrator was not convicted, because the scientific techniques that were used in 1959 were so limited. By looking at this, we can clearly see how far forensic science has come in the past 50 years, and how different the outcome of the case would have been had this had taken place in the present. We can revisit this old murder case and identify different scientific tools that we could use today to solve the crime. We can also see how applying the knowledge we now know about the human body and forensic science can help to exonerate the innocent, like it did with Truscott, and even help to find the real culprit.

The Garry Veeder case is one of many aspects. Garry Veeder was a 58-year-old forensic scientist who worked as a trace evidence technician for the New York State Police for over 34 years. In his job as a trace evidence technician, he examined things such as hairs, fibers, glass and other evidence collected during forensic investigations. Veeder worked in this position until late 2008 when he committed suicide after being investigated for falsifying data in many criminal cases he investigated. Investigators reported that Veeder “routinely failed to conduct a required test when examining fiber evidence, then falsely indicated in case records that he had performed the test. (Fisch p.6)” Veeders misconduct went unnoticed for many years because of the lack of supervision at the Investigation Center in which he was employed. As soon as Veeder became a target for investigation, the whole investigation center’s reputation began to spiral downhill. Forty-four district attorneys reviewed the criminal cases that Veeder investigated as a forensic evidence technician.

The foundation of all Forensic practice is in practicing, maintaining and protecting integrity and continuity of evidence as it establishes credibility and reliability in court and makes certain that any fabrication, misunderstanding, bias’s or even mistakes, have not occurred.

The definition of forensic science is any scientific research, method, or theory used to analyze evidence in an attempt to solve legal cases (Cho). In recent years, there has been growing public interest in forensic science, arguably because of the numerous television programs that glamorize its practices. This phenomenon is part of what is known as the CSI effect, or the process through which devoted fans of popular crime dramas develop unrealistic notions of forensic science methods, practices, and their applications in real life cases (Mancini 544; Stevens 37; Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer 52). The CSI effect has had more negative impacts on forensic science and society than positive impacts, especially in regards to what goes on in the

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and analyze the practices conducted by law enforcement during the investigation of the murder of Ashley Smith. The following pages will discuss the crime scene investigation, the evidence collection, the investigative steps following the initial crime scene investigation, the interviews of witnesses and suspects, and other strategies performed by the acting case investigators. Constitutional challenges have surfaced regarding specific pieces of critical evidence and a section of this paper will analyze the admissibility of this evidence. Lastly this case’s law enforcement processes will be contrasted with textbook processes in an effort to determine the validity of the case’s outcome.

Law and science, two powerful institutions, converge and at the same time show their differences in the criminal justice process. The seminar investigates how truth in law and truth in science are involved in the admission of forensic evidence. How does scientific uncertainty intersect with the legal process? The recent discovery of wrongful convictions involving forensic evidence addresses this question and opened a large debate among forensic scientists and legal scholars. Participants are invited to attend trials of the regional court of Berlin, the largest of its kind in Germany with three different locations. The court in Moabit tries in first instance serious crimes and in second instance less serious crimes on appeal against first instance