The Importance of Collection, Custody and Preservation of Forensic Evidence

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

There is indeed a crisis to a certain extent in the use of forensic science in the prosecution of individuals in criminal cases; this is because some judges and juries over value the objectivity of forensics, without evaluating the timeline and crime scene as a whole. This was particularly evident in the 1995 case of Mallard. In this case Andrew Mallard was convicted for the 1994 murder of Mrs Laurence, a jewellery shop owner in Perth. Mallard is now considered innocent of the murder; however this innocence was only obtained through two appeals. In the second appeal of Mallards, forensic evidence was put forward, but it is alleged that it had not been properly disclosed to the legal team of Mr Mallard when the trial commenced. Thus one of the

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.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

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

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

The proposal has sparked a moral dilemma. Victoria has had a DNA database since 1992 with the reasoning that, if a suspect is cleared, their DNA must be erased off the list. However, recently Victorian government has allowed police to collect samples from more suspected criminals, not just those accused of murder, serious assault or rape. Now they are allowed to collect from those accused of drug trafficking, arson causing death and aggravated burglary.

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 foundation of all Forensic practice is in practicing, maintaining and protecting integrity and continuity of evidence as it establishes credibility and reliability in court and makes certain that any fabrication, misunderstanding, bias’s or even mistakes, have not occurred.

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;

In the present day forensic accounting plays a huge role in many of the court cases publicized by the media. With the spotlight on the profession, this is a good opportunity to discuss the following topics:

This paper discusses the different roles that are taken on by a forensic psychologist, and how those roles interact and affect each other and how the psychologist is about to do his/her job. It looks briefly at the history of the field. We discuss the forensic psychologist as the consultant, the therapist, the researcher, as well as the expert witness. This paper also discusses predicting dangerousness and whether or not an expert can predict dangerousness. Finally we look at conflicting roles and ethics in the field.

The aim of this report is to investigate where and how anti-forensic tools work as well as looking at the challenges forensic investigators are faced when such tools are used. After anti-forensic tools are used certain artefacts will be left behind, this report will also cover the procedures and difficulties when trying to uncover these artefacts as well as the tools used to find them.

In the second part of the following essay I will be nominating one source of evidence that is present at the scene of a scenario. I will be discussing in my own words how Police should collate, handle and analyse the piece of evidence in a Criminal Investigation. In doing this I will be using relevant crime scene powers, NSWPF operational guidance and making reference to the Horswell (2004) reading.