Forensic Evidence in Trails - Research Paper Example

EXAMINE FORENSIC TESTIMONY Introduction Examining forensic evidence entails astuteness and data collection, investigating crime scenes, lab work, analysis of results from test and communicating all the necessary factors to parties in the judiciary system and law enforcers too. In nations such as the United States and United Kingdom, the differences in the legislative structure determine the communication of forensic information to the necessary people i.e. in some situations the forensic scientists present the evidence to court while in others; it goes to the departments of law enforcement then to the court (Benet 2003). However, these are not the only factors that affect the process as other determinants include variations in population, location, jurisdiction, crime level and the financial background. Significantly, forensic investigation revolves around core proprietors such as medical examiners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, quality system providers, federal agencies; moreover, they start from crime scenes after which the evidence that requires further investigation moves to local crime laboratories or private forensic laboratories. This process shows that many parties handle the evidence or access information regarding the same. Definitely, there have been ample advancements over the years in terms of using forensic science as an influential criminal justice instrument as today DNA applies in the identification of multiple attributes regarding a person. Such developments give DNA the power to determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent because most specialists agree that the technology used is accurate hence promoting fairness (Dutelle 2013). However, in some cases, this belief or fixation brings issues in the different levels that forensic evidence applies. Current Issues Regarding Forensic Evidence in Trails With the developments in forensic science, there has been an increase in issues on adequacy platforms and urges over the application of this evidence as a primary determinant of guilt. This further creates the debate on whether the forensic evidence alone should apply in making convictions. All the same, there are specialists who still question the convictions of most cases, with different people having dissimilar perspectives on events that led to the conviction of a suspect based on forensic evidence (Dutelle 2013). Nonetheless, relying on forensic results or evidence might be ambiguous because of probable factors such as errors in the laboratory, contamination at the crime scene or revelatory prejudice or deception. Research, ethics and case studies highlight a variety of inaccuracies that transpire and destabilize the buoyancy of forensic evidence from errors in calculation to lab casualties, all possible causes of inefficiency. However, today, these concerns are second to issues that affect the presentation of evidence procured by law enforcement and analyzed by forensic scientists within a criminal trial setting. Considerably, there is increased urgency on these issues because there are people in the judicial systems that take advantage of the forensic evidence using it in their favor or making irrational decisions. Extensively, some of these issues include: I. Prosecutors Misuse Forensic Science Prosecutors have the mandate of applying forensic evidence in every level of the trial processes, inclusive of disclosure before trial, presenting a witness or evidence after trial and when making their wiles to the jury. This shows that they can also misuse this evidence in their favor but by violating rule of the constitution, state and ethics policies that dictate their general mien (Benet 2003). Considerably, the nature of forensic evidence is the key facilitator of prosecutors misusing it to their advantage, especially because very few people understand its facets due to its complexity and methodological applications. The common cases of misuse are when the prosecutors subdue or unveil at the end of trials claiming it relevant then; mostly, this delays the final verdict giving the prosecutor more time or assuring further investigation. In other situations, prosecutors might produce testimonies from their forensic experts, those that are deceitful or specious; additionally, they might improperly augment the testimonies making wiles that are incorrect, ambiguous and provocative to the jury. This is a major challenge concerning forensic evidence, but the main shortcoming is that the law allows prosecutors to consult private forensic agencies, some of which do not believe in integrity. Resultantly, a basis for the solution of this issue entails the establishment of forensic labs that link with law enforcement organizations or the judicial systems that advocate for demanding regulation measures (US Department of Justice 2014). Moreover, the government can work hand in hand with the judicial systems and law enforcement agencies to refining edification and management of specialists that conduct the forensic tests and present the results in court. II. Defense Counsel Inaccuracy when Evaluating Forensic Results With the prosecutors exploiting forensic evidence in every possible way, the defense counsel lacks the necessary skills in evaluating the basis of the evidence and knowledge in ensuring that the wiles from it are accurate. For instance, law enforcement agencies use different software to identify the location of a suspect which against the law because they lack warranties or orders from the court in initiating that. The tracking entails radiation technology with radio-frequency signals and the mobile device that looks like a cellphone; essentially, this gives the police officers and private investigators a portability advantage while conducting the unlawful investigations. Most people in the defense counsel are not aware of this and when forensic evidence linking to such acts appears in court from the prosecutor they do not object as expected. In fact, the law prohibits the purchasing of such equipment by any law enforcement agencies but information from events resulting from the same still applies in court. Unfortunately, this is a mere example of the multiple cases where the defense counsel is not lenient when evaluating forensic evidence brought up against their clients. Most of the time, the prosecutors use the statement ‘confidential source’ to prevent the court from establishing the real sources and as a way of hiding the illegal ways through which they obtained such evidence (Brandon 2009). Resolutely, this creates the urge for the defense counsel to acquire more knowledge in areas concerning the presentation and acquisition of forensic evidence for better evaluation and elimination of any inaccuracies. III. Inconsistencies and Ambiguities in Judicial Rulings In Texas, there is a case where four men were suspects of irrational crimes and in the end, the court freed two, executed one and the other one is still in jail. Forensic evidence applied as the primary determinant of the courts final verdict and as it turns out, the crimes did not even happen. This is very common since the introduction of forensic science and many families complain about the ruining of their relatives’ lives (Brandon 2009). Naturally, forensic experts conduct their analysis of a crime scene and they present the results from the tests in court where nobody questions it in details; typically, their characters base on the genuineness of their work and uprightness of their engagements. Actually, they act as the voice of the victims giving them freedom of making any pacts or collaborations with people outside or in the courtroom without anyone knowing. This is the main source of uncertainties and discrepancies in judicial rulings leading to wrongful convictions and execution of innocent suspects. Forensic evidence should base on accurate recreations of crime scenes followed by independent and neutral testimony to support it; however, in a number of cases, engagements of forensic professionals detract from the credibility of the physical evidence hence sullying the voice. Generally, elimination of this and other relative issues should start by ensuring that any forensic evidence presented is per the set scientific standards to uphold validity and reliability. Need for a National Framework for Reform of Forensic Science Purposefully, there should be new frameworks that entail the collaboration of judicial systems and law enforcement agencies that act on claims of identification and litigation against the admission of forensic evidence (Dutelle 2013). Moreover, the involved parties should acquire the ability of identification, collection and preservation of forensic evidence for the independent and government crime labs. Finally, there should be awareness training for everyone including the police officers, defense counsel, prosecutors and investigators concerning the handling of forensic evidence (Government of United Kingdom 2014). More laws should be set to clarify on the consequences of forensic evidence-related crimes for prosecutor, forensic experts and other people involved in such crimes. REFERENCES Benet, L (2003) Misuse of Scientific Evidence by Prosecutors: School of Law, Pace University, 28, 17-41, http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=lawfaculty Brandon, G (2009) Invalid Forensic Testimony and Wrongful Convictions: Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 3-96. http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/1.pdf Dutelle, A. (2013) Ethics and Forensic Science: Evidence Technology Magazine, Retrieved on 1st December 2014, from http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=453 Government of Unite Kingdom (2014) Consultation of New Statutory Powers of Forensic Science Regulation: Home Office, UK. Retrieved on 1 December 2014, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256614/New_statutory_powers_for_the_forensic_science_regulator.pdf US Department of Justice (2014) Using DNA to Solve Crimes: Advancing Justice through DNA Technology, DOJ, Retrieved on 1 December 2014, from http://www.justice.gov/ag/advancing-justice-through-dna-technology-using-dna-solve-crimes Read More