Forensic Science Chapter 1 Introduction, Historic Development, and Legal Roles of Forensic Science

Learning Goals and Objectives Today, the role of science in the courtroom is undisputed. We rely upon the scientific analysis and interpretation of key evidence to both exonerate and convict. But this hasn’t always been true in history. In this chapter, an introduction to the role that forensic science has and does play in criminal justice is presented. Also, the legal underpinnings of the admissibility, use, and limitations of scientific evidence and testimony are explored.

What is meant by the terms forensic science and criminalistics? What is the difference between a basic and applied science? What is the relationship between the law, basic science, and applied science? How was forensic science developed throughout history to its present state? What is Locard’s Exchange Principle? How has fiction contributed to the development of forensic science? What is the CSI Effect and how has it influenced scienctific evidence in the courtroom? What is meant by the Principle of Individuality? How do precedent cases pave the way for scientific evidence and testimony? What are the key features of the Frye and Daubert cases? How have the Joiner, Khumo, and Melendez-Dias cases affected expert testimony?

Chapter 1 1.1 Introduction to Forensic Science 1.2 Brief History of Forensic Science 1.3 Crime Detection in Literature 1.4 Dynamic Duo of Principles: Locard’s Principle and the Principle of Individuality 1.5 Legal Precedent of Science in the Courtroom

Forensic Science

Organization Topics included are blood analysis, organic and inorganic evidence analysis, microscopic investigations, hair analysis, DNA, drug chemistry and toxicology, fiber comparisons, paints, glass compositions and fragmentation, fingerprints, soil comparisons, and arson investigations, among others.

The Popularity of Forensics A chance to explore the darker side of our human nature in a safe way? A desire to seek collective societal satisfaction and exact a moral judgment upon those who step outside the boundaries of our laws- our sense of fairness.

Modern Forensics

Forensics: Forever Changing Our legal system primarily seeks justice while the scientific world looks for greater understanding. Science is perpetually revising its understanding of the Universe while the law has a fixed end-point in time when a verdict must be rendered.

Criminalistics

Forensics Science History

Roman Forensics

Sung T’se

Bertillion

Lacassagne

Edmund Locard

Edmund Locard “Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more bear mute witness against him.” – Edmund Locard.

Principle of Individuality

Crime Detection in Literature Arthur Conan Doyle Creator of Sherlock Holmes - Based upon Poe’s Dupin and real life Prof. Joe Bell (U. Edinburgh). Preceded and foretold many chemical analyses for forensic investigations Agatha Christie Creator of Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple.Most read of crime/forensics writers.

Sherlock Holmes “The process starts upon the supposition that when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

The CSI Effect

The CSI Effect The law wants certainty- “Colonel Mustard did it in the hall with the led pipe.” While science can readily disprove an idea or exonerate a suspect, it cannot prove anything beyond simple facts and can often only provide information as to the probability that two events will occur in a specific fashion.

Forensic Science Example of the Multidisciplinay Approach and Needs of Forensic Science - “A Question of Toxicology”? Salem Witch Trials? How could the use of forensic science helped change the outcome?

Salem Witch Trials “In February of the exceptionally cold winter of 1692, young Betty Parris became strangely ill. She dashed about, dove under furniture, contorted in pain, and complained of fever. Cotton Mather had recently published a popular book, "Memorable Providences," describing the suspected witchcraft of an Irish washerwoman in Boston, and Betty's behavior mirrored that of the afflicted person described in Mather's widely read and discussed book…..”

Salem Witch Trials From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft. Dozens languished in jail for months without trials. Then, almost as soon as it had begun, the hysteria that swept through Puritan Massachusetts ended.

Ergot Ergot - A toxic fungus, ( Claviceps purpurea ) found as a parasite on grains of rye. Gangrenous ergotism -nausea, pains in the limbs, bodily extremities turn black, dry and become mummified, making it possible for infected limbs to spontaneously break off at the joints. Hallucinogenic ergotism - (may include symptoms of gangrenous ergotism) along with vivid hallucinations nervousness, physical and mental excitement, insomnia and disorientation, strange dances with wild, jerky movements accompanied by hopping, leaping, screaming, and dancing compulsively until exhaustion lead them to collapse unconscious.

Salem Localization Weather Timing Symptoms (including recovery) Accounts for full series of events

Ergot Fungus Top: A positron emission tomography (PET) scan of the brain of a person experiencing a migraine attack. Color code: high brain activity (red, yellow); low activity (green, blue). At the lower left in green is an area of reduced blood flow and low brain activity during migraine. The pain of migraine does not come from the brain, but from membranes around it and from the scalp. Left: Claviceps prupurea growing on rye. Right: Detail of Matthias Grünewal's painting "The Temptation of St. Anthony", ca. 1512-1516. The saint's fingers, held over his head, show dark marks characteristic of ergot poisoning. http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/mdd/99/marapr/images.htm

Scientific Evidence in Court Scientific (Forensic) evidence is aimed at informing the court where it lack expertise. Assist in determining fact. What is admissible evidence? Real Science vs Pseudo (Quack) Science Established how to determine the difference through 5 primary cases (Frye, Daubert, Joiner, Kuhmo, and Melendez-Dias)

Scientific Evidence in Court

Forensics in Court The results of Marston's lie detection test indicated Frye had told the truth when he denied killing the doctor, even though he later admitted to the killing. But the trial court refused to admit Marston's lie detection evidence, so Frye was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. According to the myth, the friend who had talked Frye into confessing later admitted killing the physician. As a result, Frye was freed after living three years behind bars.

Forensics in Court

Forensics in Court

Forensics in Court

Forensics in Court Daubert Case (1993) Birth defects claimed caused by prenatal us of Bendectin by Dow. The District Court granted Dow summary judgment based on expert testimony - maternal use of Bendectin had not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects. Daubert - testimony of eight experts who based conclusions that Bendectin CAN cause birth defects on animal studies, chemical structure analyses, and the unpublished "re-analysis" of human statistical studies. Court Experts found no association of bendectin w/ birth defects. Court determined that Daubert evidence did not meet the applicable "general acceptance" standard for the admission of expert testimony.

Forensics in Court Daubert Case (1993) Supreme Court - The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial. Established alternate standard to Frye for all Federal evidence.

Forensics in Court

Forensics in Court

Forensics in Court Daubert Case (1993) Guideline for determining value of scientific evidence may include: Has the technique or theory been tested Has the technique or theory been subjected to peer review What is the technique’s potential error rate Existence of standards controlling the performance of the analysis Has the theory or method received widespread acceptance within the appropriate community Allows for authentic scientific break-throughs

Frye vs. Daubert Interpretation of Frye: Interpretation of Daubert: Where novel scientific evidence is at issue, the Frye inquiry allows the judiciary to defer to scientific expertise precisely as to whether or not it has gained "general acceptance" in the relevant field. The trial court's gatekeeper role in this respect is conservative, thus helping to keep "pseudoscience" out of the courtroom. General acceptance is an austere standard absent from and incompatible with the Rules of Evidence. "Scientific knowledge" must be derived from the scientific method supported by "good grounds" in validating the expert's testimony, establishing a standard of "evidentiary reliability."

Forensics in Court Joiner Case (1995) Case asserted that PCB’s caused cancer in plaintiff Tried to establish a causal link between PCB’s and cancer based upon animal models. “Conclusions and methodology are not separate. Experts commonly extrapolate from existing data but nothing requires a court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to the data only by the expert themselves.” The court may conclude that there is too great a gap between the data and the opinion.

Forensics in Court Kumho Tire Case (1999) Tire blowout liability case. Plaintiff expert wanted to testify that the blowout was due to defect rather than under-inflation. Did not allow plaintiff expert testimony since the “test” by the expert was unreliable and made up by him (i.e., baseball batter designing his own “strike zone”). “…make certain that an expert…employs the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” Supreme Court extended Daubert's holding to include non-scientific expert testimony.

Forensics in Court Melendez- Dias Case (2009) New wrinkle in the admissibility of forensic evidence and testimony in court. The defense in a drug case argued that the actual individual who ran analysis in the lab must testify in person using as a basis for their argument the constitutional requirement that a person has the right to face their accusers.

Forensics in Court Federal Courts use Daubert Standard Many State Courts use Daubert About Half of State and Most Local Courts still use Frye.

Daubert Standard States accepting Daubert: States staying with Frye: States with their own tests, or typically a Frye-plus test: Connecticut Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Missouri New Mexico Oklahoma South Dakota Texas West Virginia Alaska Arizona California Colorado Florida Illinois Kansas Maryland Michigan Nebraska New York Pennsylvania Washington Arkansas Delaware Georgia Iowa Military Minnesota Montana North Carolina Oregon Utah Vermont Wyoming