Forensics Examiner and Digital Evidence in Nigeria

The use of experts within the tribunal system is exploited to a greater extent in tribunals; Doctors Chartered Surveyors and other professional experts can be called to give their opinion on certain forms of evidence. This is the same typically in the court system but in tribunals the Chairperson can ask questions themselves and ask for opinions, in the courts the

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

Specialized techniques for data recovery, evidence authentication and analysis of electronic data far exceeding normal data collection and preservation

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

The first grounds for an appeal, in regards to Arika’s testimony, is that identification evidence of Bargo at [20] was wrongly admitted. Except as otherwise provided in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (EA), in order for evidence to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Evidence will be considered relevant in a proceeding, if that evidence when accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. The facts in issues are the elements of the crime with which the defendant is being charged. Identification evidence from a witness is made up of the witness asserting that the accused is the person the witness heard, saw, or smelt perpetrating the crime. In the present case, Arika’s testimony would be classified as identification evidence, as she asserted that Bargo was the person who she had seen rape her.

The purpose of this full advice on evidence is to defend client William Hague. The client is on trial for murder under section 302 of the Queensland Criminal Code (henceforth known as QCC). Under section 305 of the QCC the client may be facing life in prison. Queensland’s Supreme Court trial division shall hear the potential case. Persuasive burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the client committed the murder. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ may not be directed, defined or elaborated to the jury. The client possesses an evidential burden to raise any defences beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Friday, 12/25/2015, Cpl. T. Jones and I were working uniformed patrol in a marked black and white police vehicle. At approximately 1340 hours, we responded to a domestic violence call, located at 2040 S. Bon View Ave. While on our way to the location of the call, the dispatcher said a subject threw the reporting party, Erika Alvarez, down the stairs. Upon arrival, I saw several OPD officers attempting to gain access into the residence. The front gate to the residence was locked and the front door, which was located approximately 7 feet behind the locked gate, was open. OPD officers were talking to two subjects, Erika Alvarez and Gabriel

Also, the expert must be qualified in the certain field of expertise to give evidence. As the qualification can be derived from relevant experience and observation, it is required to ask whether the expert has frequent relevant experience or observation in the DNA analysis in related to criminal cases. If the expert opinion is based on any factual platform such as testamentary capacity, unpersuasive report based on lies or absence of evidence relating to the samples collected, the evidence would be rejected to be taken to the court and the conviction could be

An expert witness’s expertise, training and special knowledge of a subject allows them to be give opinion is court. There is an exception to the rule against witnesses presenting anything but fact. Regardless, an expert witness’s opinion must be unbiased and bases solely on their special knowledge, train, and expertise in the field. The

The evidence collected in an investigation helps make or break a case. Although sometimes the evidence is not physical it can still be powerful. Graat v. The Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 819, 1982 CanLII (SCC) is a case where the crown used opinion evidence in order to win their case. Opinion evidence is hard to make admissible in court because of the exceptions that arise from it. If the witness is an expert in the matter he/she does not need to have seen the event to give his/her opinion and may use the terms “I think or I believe” to be described as opinion evidence. (Bartley, 2016) The observations made, by the witnesses involved, influence their opinions. Their knowledge on the matter, although not experts also influenced their opinions.

Within the context of the Australian judicial system, all legal proceedings are subject to certain rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. In the mid 1990’s, the existing rules of evidence were replaced by the Uniform Evidence Act’s, as a means whereby consistency of decision making could be better observed. These new rules lay out standards which must be strictly adhered to, to ensure that the rights of both parties to a case are respected, allowing for a fair trial to take place. The specific act which will be used is dependent on the jurisdiction of the court itself; all High Court, Federal Court, Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, and ACT courts are subject to The Evidence Act (Cth). The Tasmanian, New South Wales and Victorian Evidence Acts are marginally different from that of the Commonwealth, however generally speaking they are the same with a few minor differences .

In this paper, an examination of the legal standard of relevance evidence will be discussed. Furthermore, the rules of inclusion and exclusion of evidence based on the wording of the rules will be scrutinized. In the final section, examples of

Just because an idea is widely accepted, does not necessarily mean that the idea is true. The best example of this would be that historically the Earth was believed to be flat. As science, technology, and understanding advanced, this theory was discovered to not hold true. In a court of a law, a mistake like this could be the difference between someone’s life and death. “The Simplified Guide to Forensic Evidence Admissibility and Expert Witnesses” article discussed the polygraph, which even by Frye standard was not admissible in court. Today, many attorneys would be able to present a

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .