Essay on Crime Scene Evidence Handling

The popular television show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigations has been on the air for 12 years, and it has brought forth the behind-the-scenes actions of criminal investigations, even if its portrayals are not always scientifically accurate. This has caused an interest in the forensic sciences that has led most people to a skewed view of how a criminal investigation actually works. The reality of a criminal investigation is that it is generally more tedious and difficult than the theory of criminal investigation would have you believe. By examining the forensic and investigative procedures of the case of Pamela Foddrill, it is apparent that the theory of criminal investigation was not representative of the procedures concerning examination

Why is it important to secure the crime scene? What do you think would be the most difficult part of doing this?

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.

However, back in the 1980s, detailed studies were done to try to accomplish this task. One specific comprehensive study was done in 1984 by Peterson et al. In this study, the analysts found that physical evidence was discovered in only about twenty to thirty percent of serious crimes (Peterson, 2013). When each of the crimes were studied separately, however, they found that only crimes such as homicide, drug, or rape resulted in a large chance of physical evidence being found at the crime (Peterson, 2013). Cases such as attempted murder, burglaries, and robberies yielded lower chances of the retrieval of physical evidence from the crime (Peterson, 2013). When considering all of these possible crimes, the most commonly collected evidence were controlled substances, and then in lesser amounts, there was other physical evidence such as blood, hair, firearms, and fingerprints (Peterson, 2013).

Forensic evidence has been shown to be reliable due to many factors of evidence such as DNA, blood, fingerprints, etc.; however, many cases have shown that

Like you see in the Crime scene investigation shows like CSI and Bones, there are many things that go into investigating shows a lot of those things happen but it takes much longer than forty or sixty minutes to solve the crime. While crime scene investigating is very serious job, collecting evidence at crime scenes requires education and knowing of what you're doing, requires hard work, and it can be difficult to perform this job.

Forensic science has become the greatest collective method for intelligence gathering of human identifiers. The forensic sciences are used around the world to resolve civil disputes, to justly the enforcement of criminal laws and government regulations, and to protect public health. Over the years, judges have trusted forensic methods without a second thought. DNA analysis is the most reliable method that forensic has, but how reliable is it? (Jonathan Jones, pbs). According to a group called The Innocence Project, “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, found in nearly half (46%) of DNA exoneration cases” (Innocence project).

Behind every court case there’s a train of forensic science evidence and research. Forensic science is the application of scientific principles of criminal justice. In many court cases a forensic scientists is the one on the scene collecting finger prints, photos, blood samples and other evidence. Unfortunately one of the controversial issues in the forensic world is the evidence and its lack of verification of its reliability. In the field of forensics there are issues in finding proof in generating conclusion, fundamental knowledge to solve problems, and the whole false memory defense in the court. These issues can be solved in many ways like extensive research, preparation and training. These issues

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

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

They have to make sure that before they entered the crime scene, nothing in the scene should have been moved. While they are going through a walk-through, they may have to construct theories about what happened in the crime scene based on visual examination. Investigators have to take photographs of the scene and will later on be collected. Taking photographs of the scene will help them solve the crime because there are some points of the investigation that investigators may have overlooked evidence, and that evidence could be found in the photographs. After taking photographs of the scene, they will start to collect clue and evidence that may lead them to their possible suspect(s). What they may find in the crime scene are fingerprints which can be done using colored powder and a brush, other thizngs such as blood, firearms, hair, glass and many more things that can be found in the crime scenes.

The book gives a general overview of the field of forensic science. The sections of the book include “The Scene of the Crime; Working the Scene--The Evidence; Working the Scene of the Body Human;

Crime scene preservation should be the most important step to any first responder. This protocol should continue to be followed by anyone who processes the scene. From the moment the first responder arrives at the scene, he/she should exercise a pertinacious attitude to insure that curious onlookers and personnel who are not involved in a task related to the scene, remain outside the cordoned

Evidence is the key element in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes against society in a criminal court of law. Evidence can come in the form of weapons, documents, pictures, tape recordings and DNA. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, evidence is the documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law (476). It is shown in court as an item of proof, to impeach or rehabilitate a witness, and to determine a sentence. This paper will examine two murder cases, O.J. Simpson and Daniel Taylor.