What physical evidence does in a criminal trial and the vast impact it can make

In McClure, Weisburd and Wilson (2008) summary article arguing that in addition to bench science, field experimentation involving forensic methods is key to assess the utility of various methods to solve crimes. The study reflected that there is a need for more research into many aspects of forensic science, criticizing the strength of scientific evidence that’s collected at a crime scene and interpretations of most forensic methods while omitting DNA testing. McClure et al’s (2008) explains that in sexual cases and homicides, the presence of DNA evidence actually increased the likelihood of prosecution and a conviction. According to the article “…the case of convictions, the odds-ratio for the presence of DNA evidence was 33.1 for sexual offenses and 23.1 for homicides” (McClure et al., 2008). Subsequently, the research shows that there was a consistent gradual decline in the national homicide rates that began in the 1900s and continued through into the 21st century. The decline of homicides in the US has dropped by from more than 90% in the 1960s to 62% in 2003. Even though this significant drop has occurred during the introduction of the new DNA testing

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.

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).

One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or wrong forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions.

In some cases, such as murder there are some people that have been wrongfully accused. Due to wrongful practices, people have been convicted of circumstantial evidence. ``DNA is a very powerful tool . . . but it is circumstantial evidence like other pieces of circumstantial evidence and a proper investigation still has to take place,'' she said. (Matthew, n.d.).

For Iowa Lakes Criminal Justice class Introduction to Corrections I read the book Bloodsworth By Tim Junkin for my book report. The book follows the story of a man named Kirk Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth was convicted and charged for the murder and rape of a nine-year-old girl in 1984. He was sentenced to death for those charges in Maryland and gas chamber was the execution put fourth. During his whole time in prison Kirk Bloodsworth said he was innocent. He researched everyday he could and read law book after law book. He researched about DNA testing something that was very new to the time, and he searched for a lawyer that would take on his case after he had been incarcerated for over nine years. DNA testing would become very beneficial to him.

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.

This case is also of interest because the actual perpetrator was not convicted, because the scientific techniques that were used in 1959 were so limited. By looking at this, we can clearly see how far forensic science has come in the past 50 years, and how different the outcome of the case would have been had this had taken place in the present. We can revisit this old murder case and identify different scientific tools that we could use today to solve the crime. We can also see how applying the knowledge we now know about the human body and forensic science can help to exonerate the innocent, like it did with Truscott, and even help to find the real culprit.

A man by the name of Darryl Hunt was apprehended at the age of 19. He was charged and convicted of a murder that he did not commit in the year of 1984 in North Carolina. During the trial, the testing of DNA results proved the innocence of Mr. Hunt in 1994, however it took an additional 10 years of legal appeals to free him. The death of Deborah Sykes, a 25 year old copy editor at a local newspaper, whom was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death is what Mr. Hunt was accused of doing. Until this day this crime still touches many including Mr. Hunt.

Technology in the late 60’s was insufficient to collect DNA samples from suspects, however, in 1998 Riverside Police collected skin samples from their only remaining suspect in the case. The results of these tests have not been released to the public.

That he was exonerated raises questions as to whether there are other countless people serving time for crimes they never committed. There is need to examine the role of DNA in criminal prosecutions since this plays a fundamental part in convicting a suspect.

This research report researched hundreds of cases where post-conviction DNA was used in cases of exoneration. This researched preformed different tests on available physical evidence. This research report is full of data and case studies to be compared to.

In 1987 in Texas, a prosecutor was faced with this dilemma. Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his wife based on circumstantial evidence. Morton’s defense attorney was never told about, or given access to, the police report in which Morton’s three year old son had told police that his daddy had not killed his mommy. After serving 25 years for murdering his wife, Morton was exonerated after attorneys were finally given access to the police report and DNA testing of a bloody bandana found at the scene of the murder matched a man who was serving a sentence for the murder of another woman.

In the case of Wayne Williams, the fiber evidence was key in obtaining the conviction for the murders (Imwinkelried, 1983). The fiber evidence most assuredly led to the jury’s final decision of guilty, without this evidence a case could not have been formed to display the guilt of Wayne Williams without the shadow of a doubt. In addition to the fiber evidence, the prosecution presented hair evidence that displayed a 98% chance of belonging to Wayne Williams as well as his German Shepherd, Sheba (Deadman, 1984). This evidence alone would not have proven the guilt of Wayne Williams. The prosecution also presented witness testimony linking Wayne Williams to some of the victims despite his own testimony relaying he had no contact with them.

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.