Crime Evidence

Unfortunately, these shows also create a false expectation that clear and definite evidence can be shown for any case, which is not true. Jurors expect every case to have thorough scientific evidence from the best and most modern technology and to look exactly as it does on a television show (Shelton). Radford said, “Science does not operate on certainties.” During an investigation, scientists don’t ever say that the DNA being tested is a “match” to the suspect because nothing can ever be a definite match. Instead, their vocabulary consists of phrases such as

This may also be due to the credibility of scientific evidence, for example the scientific evidence of DNA is hard to disprove in court as members of society are made to believe through the influence of social media that if there is DNA evidence present the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. While DNA has helped solve many cases and been used in court during the criminal trial process to prove and disprove an accused innocence it also adds to the flaws in the efficiency of the trial process. There are cases in which the accused had been wrongfully convicted due to DNA results, such as the case of Farah Jama where a man was wrongfully convicted of rape through the evidence of DNA alone. Farah Jama was convicted of raping a woman in a nightclub in 2006, in 2008 before a jury he was sentenced to six years jail by Judge Paul Lacava. Farah was found guilty of rape solely on the basis of DNA, adding to the suggestion that the jury is persuaded by the DNA evidence. In early 2009 a solicitor took on Jamas case, asking for the retesting of the key DNA sample, the scientist who retested the sample expressed doubts to its reliability. Jamas was later acquitted and it is highly likely that he was convicted of a crime that never took place. This was a miscarriage of justice which raises the question whether or not scientific

What is the CSI Effect and does it’s effect have an impact on juror’s decision making? “The CSI Effect- defines the impact crime dramas, such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, have on juror’s decision –making process (Parker, 2)”. The Article The Portrayal of the American Legal System in Prime Time Television Crime Dramas; investigated how the legal system is portrayed in prime time network television. “Each week CSI drew in audiences averaging more than 10 million viewers (Parker, 109)”. These episodes portrayed forensic scientist using expensive and advanced equipment to do DNA testing and evaluate gunshot residue left at crime scenes. The article The Verdict on Television discusses “The

There has been a lot of research intending to fully discover the extent of the CSI effect television that has found its impact to be negative. Of the multitudes of negative impacts of the CSI effects, among the most prevalent are the unrealistic expectations that viewers have of DNA and other types of forensic evidence in the courtroom. In Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer’s study, they analyzed a large sample of CSI episodes for their content relating to forensic science. The study found that that in 94% of all episodes in the sample the detectives used DNA evidence to solve cases. Also, in 88% of all cases shown, the

From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.

Opinions are generally divided between two groups: those who are extremely worried about the negative influence of the CSI effect and try to draw serious attention to its dangers, and those who believe that the CSI effect and the discussions surrounding it are exaggerated and there is in fact no evidence to support the negative claims to such a high and threatening extent. Before looking at several cases where the CSI effect has been blamed to have distorted jury verdicts, the paper will clarify what is understood by the so-called CSI effect, how it is displayed in practice, what exactly it suggests

The CSI effect is the influence of crime dramas, and forensics related television shows on the public. Shows like CSI and NCIS depicts crimes that almost always produce an abundance of evidence that can be presented in court. Influence from these shows are leading jurors to demands evidence in real life cases. The CSI effect is concerning to the justice system because it places a greater burden on both the prosecution and forensic scientist. The CSI effects impacts not only jurors, but it also impacts public perception. The CSI effect as also causes the media to expect far more evidence than both the prosecution and forensic scientists can produce. The apprehension regarding the CSI effect in relation to the judicial system is a valid concern.

When the media hears about crime committed, the first thing they like to do is discuss the incident on the television. That, however, could get out of hand at times because of the ratings. The ratings, at times, have the ability to go up or go down. As much as the media would like the ratings to remain high at all times, unfortunately that doesn’t always happen. The media may face conflicts when it comes to ratings and will do whatever that’s needed to lure the viewers (Beale, 2006). That being said, the media may go to the extent of following the juror in an attempt to attract viewers despite the unethical nature of the act. Despite the benefit of having high ratings, the Code of Practice requires that the media don’t harass journalist in any shape or form when they are told to stay away from their territory (“How the PCC Can Help You,” 2016). Just because the Code of Practice is enforced in a daily basis among journalist, it doesn’t mean that every journalist will follow it. Due to all the danger that jurors are exposed to before and after a criminal proceeding, I believe that they should be given a choice whether or not their personal information should be exposed to

Discovery of the truth is essential in determining an individual’s criminal culpability, as reflected by the oath to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. However, my observations have revealed that truth is not, as often defined, “the actual state of things”. Instead “truth is a process”, prone to manipulation, and often to the detriment of the defendant. I will substantiate this by exploring two themes. Firstly, I will analyse how prosecutors may develop a favourable set of facts from objective testimonies, via the process of filtering, distorting, and using hypotheticals. Next, I will discuss how legal practitioners use their expertise to influence the way facts are perceived by the jury. It is this process of

After I saw this movie, read the student’s posts, and did some searches online I’m feeling that there is sexual abuse everywhere. There are some terrible stories about police officers that made me scared. I think that all of us must learn how to defend ourselves because you never know if the police that you are count on will defend or hurt you.

In America, our court system is based on the right to a fair, unbiased trial, assuming the innocence of men and women until proven otherwise by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence can come in many different types. This evidence can come from witnesses, the crime scene, or even the victim themselves. Probably the most convincing and hardest to refute of these types of evidence is forensic evidence, or hard evidence. In the essay “Forensic Science: Evidence, Clues, and Investigation”, by Andrea Campbell, the author explains and provides evidence for why she believes that hard evidence is most important type of evidence to use during a trial, and in this essay we will be analyzing that passage and discussing the major ideas and beliefs held by the author about forensic science.

The article “Converting Evidence Into Data” says, “The newly emerging area of Investigative Psychology provides a behavioural science basis for crime detection by examining investigative processes and criminal behaviour” (Canter). This new area of forensics is attracting many people and is a controversial method of solving a crime. Although it has been proven to be quite helpful in helping with criminal investigations. Furthermore Forensic Psychologists are instrumental in solving a homicide investigation by using evidence that the police have obtained, coming up with a profile, and by testifying as an expert witness in the offender’s trial.

Evidence is collected and constructed to make a case. Evidence can provide detailed information about the event. Police and investigators rely on evidence to uncover the truth. Evidence helps identify the guilt or innocence of a offenders. There are many type of evidence that can be admitted at a trial like testimony, direct evidence and others to help the case. In the passage “Forensic Science: Evidence, Clues, and Investigation” by Andrea Campbell, forensic evidence is the most important type of evidence is the most important type of evidence to be presented at a trial.

This article originated from the author 's presentation at the 2010 Cooley Law School Symposium on the "CSI Effect." It reviews the results of two empirical studies of Michigan jurors in various jurisdictions, which previously concluded that the "prosecutor version" of the so-called CSI effect cannot be substantiated empirically. The article then describes merged data from the two studies and the analysis of that merged data. The data supports the earlier suggestion of a "tech effect" based on cultural changes, rather than any direct impact on certain television programs or genres. It is suggested that while the prosecutor version of the CSI effect is a myth, there are increased juror expectations that arise from the combination of the tech effect, the general media portrayal of forensic evidence, and the misperception of attorneys and judges that the CSI effect does exist. Possible justice system responses to that combined effect are described, and it is suggested that the legal system must adapt itself to modern juror expectations rather than blaming jurors for "unreasonable" expectations and demands for forensic science evidence.

Identification is the first proof of an offence in any indictment. It is essential that the police officer has a detailed description to determine the identification of the accused (Preparation of Police Statements, 2017). Constable Ellis correctly identified the accused by way of the accused drivers licence. By correctly identifying the offender can determine the course of action that is taken. For example, A Field Court Attendance Notice can be issued instead of arresting the offender and taking them back to the station to be charged. Identity of a person, place or thing is a hearsay exception and may be admitted in to evidence under section 66, subsection 3 of the Evidence Act 1995. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless it meets