Case Law and Forensic Science

I feel that this case was somewhat representative of what was discussed in the textbook. The forensics aspects of this case were generally different from the impression of forensics I received from reading the textbook. Despite this fact, I feel that the investigative techniques of this case were similar to what was discussed in the textbook, as well as what has been discussed during lecture.

On the evening of November 26th, 2000 a sixteen-year-old girl named Leanne Tiernan went missing. She was walking back from shopping with her friend and took a shortcut back home. Not until 9 months later in August of 2001 was her body found. A man walking his dogs in Lindley Woods found her body. Her body was in a shallow grave. Over her was a duvet cover that had a floral pattern. She was wrapped in ten plastic green bags with twine wrapped around them to keep them together. She had three cable ties around her wrists one yellow on one wrist, one black on the other, and a second black tie to connect the other two ties together very much like a daisy chain. She had a plastic bag around her head with a dog collar to hold

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.

United States. In Washington, D.C. the court stated in the Frye v. United States case that expert testimony is only admissible if the science testified is by an expert who is generally accepted within the scientific community. Most courts followed the Fry standard until 1993, when the Supreme Court made its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case. Many courts believe that the Frye standard provides greater protection than Daubert standard. There has been many controversies over whether evidence based forensic science should be allowed as evidence in the courtroom. Many people have argued this even before the Daubert case. Forensic science evidence can include fingerprints, bite-mark analysis, and tool mark identification. All of those types of forensic science evidence have been used as incriminating evidence against people in the courtroom. Forensic science evidence can be used in criminal and civil cases. Many states now follow the Daubert standard versus following the Frye standard. The Frye standard was used everywhere prior to the Daubert case. There are still a few states that follow the Frye standard instead of the Dabuert standard. Both cases were extremely important in allowing forensic evidence to be presented in the courtroom. Each case changed the way that forensic evidence is presented and how each bit of evidence is allowed in the

The court held that the expert medical witness testimony regarding the Herbel Study, his own experiences as a physician, and the medical record of the defendant did not provide enough evidence to justify the forced medication of the defendant even though all three concerned patients with delusional disorders. Watson, 793 F.3d at 428. The court found that the fourteen year-old Herbel study was inherently flawed due to its design and did not justify the forced medication of the defendant because the information provided about its subjects was neither similar enough nor specific enough to the situation of the defendant at hand. Id. at 426. Similarly, the court faulted the government’s reliance on the personal experiences of the witness because the information provided regarding his patients was not specific enough to the defendant’s situation. In particular, the testimony did not indicate that the previously treated patients had delusions that were “meaningfully similar in nature and persistence” to those of the defendants. The medical record of the defendant was also inadequate because although it reported that he had previously been given the, it only indicated that he had been treated and released. Id. at

Federal Rule 702: Testimony by Experts states, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Gardner, T.J., Anderson, T.M. (2010). Ms. Vito had specialized knowledge and understanding of automobiles which came from her years of working in a garage that specialized in automotive repair. Based on Federal Rule 702, testimony by experts is based on knowledge the witness provides to the trier for understanding of the evidence provided. Ms. Vito did so by her statements clearly noting the 1964 Buick Skylark could not have made the tire tracks that were left at the scene because of the positraction, a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires, that the 1964 Buick Skylark did not come equipped with as the 1963 Pontiac Tempest did. According to

Anti-scientific bias has been an American evidence law for several reason. Many of admissibility and legal sufficiency rules have been proved to be bias in America. This bias has been an underlying issue that typically for the citizen that become potential juror because they cannot critically evaluate the evidence like a highly professional would. In the results of a national educational test, it was demonstrated that there is a widespread in the United States of scientific illiteracy. With the principle of scientific proof, there has been a lot of controversy over drugs testing presents with forensic science and the unknown of the citizen who are posed as jurors during this time. This was a debate that the scientific community could help and

In Lee v. State, the 14th Court of Appeals held that an expert could testify as to their opinion, of information from a third party. Lee v. State, 418 S.W.3d 892, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd). Furthermore, the very basis for this court’s conclusion is supported by at least eight justices in the Supreme Court case Williams v. Illinois. In this case, although it was a plurality opinion, eight justices saw “no Confrontation Clause problem with testifying experts providing an independent evaluation of evidence that someone else collected.” Id. This rule becomes even more tailored to our current case because both cases dealt with histological slides specifically autopsies conducted by another pathologist than the one

Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony from ACI and/or Mark Soderlund is a thinly-veiled attempt to challenge the expert’s credibility prior to trial. Under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, “if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Minn. R. Evid. 702. Therefore, Minnesota courts find an expert to be competent to testify if

This information will help investigators cluster the symptoms with a particular disease and rule out irrelevant information. The surveillance of the components gather in this step will put a perspective on the abnormal health events that are occurring on the outbreak timeline.

Answer the following questions, which are based upon the first four modules of the course.

between a cut (an injury that is longer than deep) and a stab wound (an injury

I have always loved suspenseful whodunit television shows, movies, and books that use forensic science to crack the cases. My favorite television show is The First 48, my favorite movie is The Silence of the Lambs, and my favorite book is The Body Farm. Therefore, I was excited to have the opportunity to take this course and learn even more about the subject of forensics. This essay gives a summary of N. E. Genge’s book, The Forensic Casebook: The Science of Crime Scene Investigation, and includes the things I disliked and liked about the book.

Forensic Science is applying science to criminal law. Forensics uses science to support or shoot down theories made about a crime or the crime scene. Forensic science has many branches, such as forensic toxicology, forensic psychology, forensic entomology and more. There are so many fields to go into, and they are all necessary for the criminal justice process using forensic science. While forensics is a very broad field, all origins of it come from basic scientific study, such as general biology (What Is Forensics).

Forensic science involves the use of science to solve criminal and civil crimes but mostly lies on the side of criminal investigations. It makes it possible to identify the criminals based on the DNA traces they leave behind. It involves analyses of blood, DNA and other evidences and later on uses the findings as evidence in the court of law. It helps in solving the various crimes in the world and this has been the greatest contributor to the growth of the sector. Cases that were previously considered impossible due to lack of evidenced tracing to the victim can now be solved using forensic science evidences. The essay aims at analyzing the different aspects of forensic science that are used in the process of solving criminal activities. It will also look at the different cases that forensic science was used to solve crimes in a court of law.