Essay on The Use of Forensic Evidence in Investigation

Physical evidence is anything that can establish a crime has occurred and anything that links the crime to a criminal. Three examples of physical evidence are fibers, weapons, and hair.

7) Pollen & Spore identification can provide important trace evidence in solving crimes dues to their

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 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

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

Criminal justice systems must ensure the review of the forensic science by providing standardization of the interpretation of evidence. Trusting that the system at hand which relies upon an adversary system can ensure adequate protection from faulty forensic science is unrealized (Gershman, 2007). Most importantly is the lack of checks and balances in a judicial system where according to the Bureau of Justice Department (2011), 90 to 95% of criminal cases in state and federal level are resolved by plea bargain (3). Forensic science should be validated before its use through empirical standardized, and the court system must subscribe to the ethical use of forensics to serve justice (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). Prosecutorial misconduct contributes significantly to wrongful convictions (Joy,2006). Examples are not isolated nor rare, and conclusion coupled with unprincipled motivation requires a more stringent requirements ethics, transparency, and standardization (Joy,2006). Criminal justice systems do not identify innocent defendants, thereby losing significant factors that contribute to wrongful conviction (Gould, J. et al., 2013). Police and the courts continuously increase their reliance on forensic science to corroborate evidence, signifying the necessity for validation and standardization (Strom, K., & Hickman, M., 2015). However, we must embrace that flawed forensics impacts our criminal justice system and can contribute to the death of the innocent. Blind faith in a proven imperfect system jeopardizes

Maeder, et al. (2016) defined “CSI effect” as the unreasonable expectations of jurors on the sophistication of forensic science as a consequence of learning about it through television programs, such as the CSI (Crime Scene Investigation), resulting to fewer convictions in the absence of sophisticated forensic evidence against the accused. Lobo and Schnobrich-Davis (2015) referred to this as “Tech effect”, which essentially extends the definition into the advances in information dissemination technology and beyond ‘crime scene television shows’.

Holmgren and Fordham looked into the CSI effect on jurors in Canada and Australia to see if they have unrealistic expectations when it comes to forensic evidence. They used college students who were eligible for jury duty in Canada and in Australia the used people who had already been selected for jury duty. To obtain the results they used surveys for both groups to measure their view habits and verdicts, along with interviews for the Australian participant. The results showed that while some are influenced by their viewing habits in terms of forensic evidence it didn’t have the results that they were expecting

The CSI Effect is the dramatized representation of forensic science on crime television shows (Shelton, 2008). The effect was named after the most popular show Criminal Scene Investigation. These crime television shows impact the audience’s perception on how a criminal trial functions (Shelton, 2008). As the show Criminal Scene Investigation continues to gain millions of viewers, the audience has began to hold high expectations for evidence in a courtroom (Ericksen, 2017). Many viewers have began to distance themselves from the reality of the criminal courts procedures because of these shows. Moreover the CSI has been affecting jurors decisions in court (Ericksen, 2017). Jurors have begun to depend solely on the scientific evidence since crime shows portray that testimonies hardly matter in a case.

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

In an hour episode, viewers are exposed to the law, evidence review and case findings. Experts speak of knowledge obtained over the course of many years receiving technical training and on the job crime scene investigation experience, often breaking down complicated concepts in terms so that the viewing audience can easily understand. According to one 2006 weekly Nielsen rating, approximately 70 million watched at least one of these three CSI shows, Cold Case, Bones and Number3rs (Shelton, D.). With this knowledge base in hand, there is a great likelihood that many of these viewer report for jury duty the next day. A study completed by students currently pursuing a degree in the field of criminal justice stated that some participants appreciate that the programs generate interest in their field: ‘Forensic TV shows are a good way of getting people into the profession but lack truth in what really goes on behind the scenes (Weavera, R., Salamonson, Y., Koch, J. & Porter, G.). Television viewers are not privy to this “lack of truth” until they actually begin a course of study in this field. CSI shows need to invoke a disclaimer to help assist the viewing audience that the information being learned in today’s episode, will leave out more extensive knowledge

“It is becoming more relevant that prosecutors rely upon the skill or capability of a victim or witness to compellingly perform in front of a jury, regardless of the substantial evidence of the case which includes forensic science analysis.” Research has shown that “82% of Judges are always or very often impressed by the CSI effect, 59% of Juries are always or very often influenced by the CSI effect, and 76% of Defense lawyers always or very often resorted to the CSI effect account to make

the CSI effect is the notion that people who watch crime shows like CSI feel as though they have an understanding of forensic investigation and an expectation that a certain amount of evidence should be presented at a trial just like in the shows. In his research titled The Impact of Crime Drama Viewership on Perceptions of Forensics and Science, Amber Ferris studied the relationships between crime drama viewership and perceptions of forensics and science. Part of his research found a positive correlation between the numbers of hours spent watching a show and it effect on people’s perception of forensic evidence. Ferris found that “the more participants watched CSI programming, the more likely they were to indicate that scientific evidence would be presented in theft cases and in every criminal case”(Ferris,2011, p.78) and that hours spent per week viewing CSI: Miami was positively related to participant’s‟ likelihood of expecting forensic evidence in every criminal case(Ferris,2011, p.76). This notion is one of many misconceptions that come from TV’s take on forensic investigation. In a study of 400 murder cases across multiple jurisdictions, it was found that only 13.5% of the cases had physical evidence that linked the crime to the suspect (Turvey,2011, p.147). DNA was found in only 4.5% of the homicides with latent fingerprints being found 28% of the time and biological

Integrity of Evidence The FBI Crime Lab has come a long way since it opened. All began in the 1920’s, when a person named J. Edgar Hoover recognized the importance of scientific analysis in criminal matters (Forensic Science Communications, 2007, para. 1). Ever since that moment the crime grew a lot. The use of technology to solve crimes increased tremendously overtime.