Annie Dookhan's Role In Forensic Investigations

I think that the most difficult responsibility of a forensic scientist is being an expert witness. I think that it would be challenging because you’re testifying in a very important court case, you’re under pressure, and you cannot lie, leave out details, or stretch the truth. Whatever you say affects whether or not the criminal in the case is found guilty or walks free, which can be very stressful to think 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.

Nearly anyone you ask would be familiar with the television show CSI. The crime lab is colorful and high-tech with all of the fun toys and machines that analysts use to test the ever abundant amount of forensic evidence from every crime scene. It makes for an exciting drama that you cannot help but get immersed in—it also gives us a false illusion, however, creating what has been dubbed as the “CSI effect” (Baskin, 2011). This effect describes the idea that crime shows such as CSI generate unreal expectations, making viewers believe that forensic evidence should be existent in all criminal trials, therefore affecting their overall perspective on a case (Baskin, 2011). But in reality, forensic labs are not that glamorous. In fact, the

Less frequently, individuals will allude to the "CSI Effect" to allude to the inverse, nonetheless. Defense attorneys, for instance, now and again contend that attendants impacted by "CSI" have a tendency to accept that any scientific confirmation gathered will be implicating. This is likewise hazardous, commentators say, in light of the fact that individuals don't normally think about the likelihood of error or even fraud [source: Cole. Scientific researchers have been known to fudge results about request to get a conviction, in the event that they accept that is the thing that the police desire. Take, for instance, Joyce Gilchrist, a police scientific expert who

“the forensic scientist must contend with four pressures, these being from law enforcement, the adversary system, science, and the individual’s own sense of morality. The pressures must be balanced to form an overriding concept of ethical behavior at all stages of professional involvement in the forensic investigation.” (Galloway et al. 1990:39). Without a background in the legal implications, the forensic anthropologist could jeopardize the entire investigation, since they are considered an expert in their field. All findings must be

Unfortunately, life does not always imitate art. Evidence proved that in a number of Durnal studies, that exposure to forensic science television drama series has altered the American legal system in complex and far-reaching ways. Jurors think they have a thorough understanding of science they have seen presented on television, when they do not. In a case cited by Durnal, jurors in a murder trial brought to the judge’s attention that a bloody coat introduced as evidence was not tested for DNA. The defendant admitted being present at the murder scene, so the test would not have thrown light on the identity of the true culprit. The judge stated that television is to thank for jurors knowing what DNA tests could do, but not when it was appropriate to use them. Another study revealed 62% of defense lawyers and 69% of judges agreed that jurors had unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence. Approximately half of the respondents in each category felt that jury selection was taking longer than it used to, because they had to be sure that prospective jurors were not judging scientific evidence by television standards (The CSI Effect,

Often trails become controversial. When these court cases reach an end, people are either very satisfied or infuriated with the ruling or settlement that was determined. In the late 1990’s, a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer conducted trails on a new experimental drug in Kano, Nigeria. The drug was intended to be an alternative treatment to

Criminal justice systems must ensure the review of the forensic science by providing standardization of the interpretation of evidence. Trusting that the system at hand which relies upon an adversary system can ensure adequate protection from faulty forensic science is unrealized (Gershman, 2007). Most importantly is the lack of checks and balances in a judicial system where according to the Bureau of Justice Department (2011), 90 to 95% of criminal cases in state and federal level are resolved by plea bargain (3). Forensic science should be validated before its use through empirical standardized, and the court system must subscribe to the ethical use of forensics to serve justice (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). Prosecutorial misconduct contributes significantly to wrongful convictions (Joy,2006). Examples are not isolated nor rare, and conclusion coupled with unprincipled motivation requires a more stringent requirements ethics, transparency, and standardization (Joy,2006). Criminal justice systems do not identify innocent defendants, thereby losing significant factors that contribute to wrongful conviction (Gould, J. et al., 2013). Police and the courts continuously increase their reliance on forensic science to corroborate evidence, signifying the necessity for validation and standardization (Strom, K., & Hickman, M., 2015). However, we must embrace that flawed forensics impacts our criminal justice system and can contribute to the death of the innocent. Blind faith in a proven imperfect system jeopardizes

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

Forensic Psychologists play important roles in our legal system, from collecting knowledge and applying it to the law to evaluating the defendants (Greene, 2014). Every case has different factors that effect which Forensic Psychologist will be needed to achieve finding the truth in the court. Likewise with every case, each defendant has their own accountant of what had happened to bring them before the court. In the cases of Alisha Waters and Shawn Smith an Applied Scientist could be called to be an expert witness in both cases. In Adam Parker’s a Forensic Evaluator was called in to evaluate his mental state.

Junk science, also referred to as unreliable or improper forensic science, is known as another cause of wrongful conviction. Since the late 1980s, DNA analysis has helped identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent nationwide. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques — such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons — have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated — such as serology, commonly known as blood typing — are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results or engaged in other misconduct. Unlike DNA testing,

    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.

In many court cases a forensic scientists is the one on the scene collecting finger prints, photos, blood samples and other evidence; for the research and evidence to be the biggest part of the job it’s the biggest issue in the field, which can be easily solved by increasing funding. We now where in many cases where these flaws happened and the many innocent people who were convicted wrongly due to this mistake. We must now learn from our mistakes and take action. We must receive better funding to help us get better material so we can detect these flaws ahead of time. We must also have better training so we won’t fall short in evidence and repeat these terrible mistakes. These are obvious problems and its controversial issues that must be corrected, perfected and

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

Forensic science is a broad term that refers to the use of science or technology in a court room environment. Forensic science plays an important role in modern popular culture; the police procedural is highly dependent upon cutting-edge forensic science. Moreover, many people are aware of the impact of DNA testing on the modern criminal justice landscape. However, forensic science actually predates many modern scientific advances; almost as long as there have been controversies, there has been some type of forensic science.