Forensic Investigation Report Essay

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

One particular case that highlighted the lack of uniqueness in bite marks involved two suspects accused of attacking a man that had sustained a bite mark injury. Two separate forensic dentists, one representing the prosecution and one the defense, were brought in to analyze the mark. They

In a consequent study to that discussed above, another team of researchers investigated the effect of forensic evidence on the outcome of various criminal cases. By analyzing data from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the researchers concentrated their study on decision-making during the cases, characteristics of these cases, and how forensic evidence relates to these cases (Peterson, 2013). Due to the scope of this paper, the study of how forensic evidence relates to the

In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

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,

The CSI Effect is said to have poisoned the minds of jurors and their expectations of presenting evidence by the forensic science T.V. shows like CSI (Crime Scene Investigators) influence their perceptions of jurors being able to provide forensic evidence. “Using the fact that Hollywood could determine the outcome of case by letting the guilty go free, but in a society where the criminal justice system has convicted many people who was innocent.” (McRobert’s, Mills, & Possley, 2005, P. 1). Juror’s have demanded the use of forensic science for forensic evidence in criminal trials which means that prosecutors will have to provide more of the proof of juror’s to get a conviction. CSI Effect believe that crimes show such as CSI have little to no affect on juror’s actions to make a

Judge Shelton explains that even though his study shows no data that the higher expectation for evidence equates to higher acquittals, he claims that law enforcement personnel still believe that the CSI Effect on jury outcomes exists and that this belief affects their behavior. In fact, during a report to Congress, the National Academy of Sciences referenced a study conducted by Saks and stated that the law enforcement’s belief of the CSI Effect affects how prosecutors present evidence in trial. Because of the crime shows, prosecutors try to make their presentation interesting and appealing believing that the way the evidence is presented with affect how the jurors see the evidence’s credibility. Also according to Judge Shelton, because of this assumption, prosecutors have been known to question witness on whether or not they watch shows like CSI as well as tell the jury that forensic evidence is not part of the state’s burden of proof. In the end, Judge Shelton offers an explanation for jurors’ expectations for forensic evidence.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

The book begins with a discussion of two key issues providing the impetus for this text: Limited and/or inconsistent research findings related to juror and jury decision making and flawed theoretical approaches to understanding juror and jury decision making. Devine traces the almost exponential growth in jury research from the 1950s to present with an emphasis on advancements in methods used and diversification of topics. He next discusses the evolution of increasingly complex theories and models used to predict decision-making outcomes for both jurors and juries. Devine concludes this initial component of the book with several criticisms of extant theoretical models including the emphasis on why rather than how decisions are made, the focus on criminal trials to the exclusion of other types of trials, the failure to integrate juror-level and jury-level models, and the lack of a comprehensive approach that incorporates all aspects of the trial and its participants. In these introductory chapters, Devine does an excellent job of capturing the growing interest in jury decision making and highlights an important gap in the field of jury research—the need for a

The results of this project showed that male expert witnesses were perceived more likeable to the fake jurors than the female. When people

    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.

Although Schweitzer and Saks in 2007, found that forensic evidence presented in a trial to CSI viewers, any evidence they were shown was less believable than to people who did not watch CSI. Even with those findings, the verdicts of both CSI watchers, and non

Bite marks has put many people in jail. Bite marks evidence is part of the forensic odontologist where a dentist uses his expertise to match bite marks that has been left on a person's body with dental records of the suspect to determine whether or not a person has is guilty of a crime or not guilty. Even though Bite mark evidence has been used to prosecute there has been no real research that shows that bite mark evidence is accurate. Being that bite mark evidence has been considered as having no findings that the arrangement of a person's teeth is not unique in a way that a person DNA would be in a criminal proceeding. Because human being skin is stretchy and can deform in a way that it could look like a bite mark impression has been made