The Law & Forensics Chapters 1-3 (Some information not found in textbook)

I. District Attorney/Prosecution Decide which cases go to trial – based on evidence Decide which cases go to trial – based on evidence Most DA’s are elected Most DA’s are elected Decide what crime to charge a person with – affects punishment Decide what crime to charge a person with – affects punishment Decide who can plea bargain Decide who can plea bargain All offenders have a right to legal representation, speedy trial, to be heard & to be informed of proceedings All offenders have a right to legal representation, speedy trial, to be heard & to be informed of proceedings

II. Law Enforcement Have first contact with crime/victim Have first contact with crime/victim Investigate, gather evidence, hold evidence for trials Investigate, gather evidence, hold evidence for trials Arrest alleged offenders Arrest alleged offenders Petition judge to go to trial – from evidence Petition judge to go to trial – from evidence Read suspect Miranda Rights Read suspect Miranda Rights –Miranda Rights do not protect you from arrest, but do protect against incriminating yourself

III. Judge Oversee court proceedings Oversee court proceedings Ensures the law is followed at all stages, including evidence collection & investigation Ensures the law is followed at all stages, including evidence collection & investigation Makes final ruling/decision – based on jury Makes final ruling/decision – based on jury Decide what evidence is allowed, and what evidence is not Decide what evidence is allowed, and what evidence is not Determines sentencing Determines sentencing Decides what is bias or prejudicial Decides what is bias or prejudicial

IV. Jury Must be made of peers of the offender Must be made of peers of the offender Weigh all evidence, without bias Weigh all evidence, without bias Render a verdict – beyond a reasonable doubt Render a verdict – beyond a reasonable doubt –If there is doubt, a verdict of not guilty should be recommended

V. 4 th Amendment Rights Search & Seizure – decides admissibility of evidence Search & Seizure – decides admissibility of evidence Search warrants – needed to search & seize evidence Search warrants – needed to search & seize evidence –Without a warrant, evidence cannot be used in court –Must have probable cause to search –Issued by a judge In some cases a warrant-less search can be conducted In some cases a warrant-less search can be conducted

V. Continued Conditions for a Warrant-less search: Conditions for a Warrant-less search: 1.Emergency Circumstances (ex: shootout) 2.Need to prevent immediate loss or destruction of evidence (ex: house fire) 3.Search of person or property within immediate control of that person results in a lawful arrest (ex: traffic violation, see drugs) 4.Parties involved give consent (don’t have to give consent, but to not give might imply guilt)

V. Continued Court cases that uphold 4 th Amendment Court cases that uphold 4 th Amendment –Mincey vs. Arizona = Emergency situations only apply once – after that you have enough time to get a warrant for a second search –Michigan vs. Tyler = must obtain a warrant when revisiting a crime scene

VI. 5 th Amendment Rights Right to “Plead the Fifth” so as not to incriminate yourself Right to “Plead the Fifth” so as not to incriminate yourself –Miranda Rights are your 5 th Amendment Rights – have the right to seek representation before talking to an investigator –Do not protect you from arrest, only from incriminating yourself

VII. Admissibility of Evidence In order for evidence to be accepted by courts, it must meet the admissibility standards set by the courts (state/Federal) In order for evidence to be accepted by courts, it must meet the admissibility standards set by the courts (state/Federal) The Frye Standard: The Frye Standard: –Frye vs. United States: Questioned procedures must meet ‘general acceptance’ standard Relevant scientific community determines this Relevant scientific community determines this Is a state court standard – Ohio follows this ‘rule’ Is a state court standard – Ohio follows this ‘rule’

VII. Continued Daubert Ruling Daubert Ruling –Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.: General Acceptance is not enough – must meet The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) FRE says that any scientist with the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify as an Expert Witness FRE says that any scientist with the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify as an Expert Witness An Expert Witness gives their scientific ‘opinion’ of evidence – opinion is allowed because it is based on science & proven scientific procedures – must be able to defend results as well An Expert Witness gives their scientific ‘opinion’ of evidence – opinion is allowed because it is based on science & proven scientific procedures – must be able to defend results as well

VII. Continued –Judge decides who/what is an expert witness – acts as the ‘gatekeeper’ –Daubert ruling applies only to Federal Courts, but state courts can use –Coppolino vs. State and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. vs. Carmichael both upheld Daubert ruling