The Use of Police as Expert Witnesses and Investigators Brings a Conflict of Interests - Case Study Example

Critical Essay Name: Institution: Date: Introduction Forensic services collect, identify, and analyze evidence gathered from scenes of crime, traffic incidents, sudden deaths, disasters as well as biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats. Making sure these services are accomplished efficiently, effectively and in a way that is co-ordinated are very important to public safety as well as the smooth operation of the criminal justice system of Western Australia (Bell, 2008). Western Australia Police applies forensic analysis for guiding investigations, development of prosecution cases as well as excluding persons of interest justified by evidence. The State Coroner applies forensic analysis in the identification of the death cause and Office of Director of Public Prosecutions applies forensic analysis in making a case for prosecution. Other people in the criminal justice like people charged with the crime and their families, and defense counsel are interested in the forensic services operating efficiently and effectively. The handling of Splatt murder case brings into perspective important issues that have to be addressed with regard to forensic evidence and its submission (Horswell, 2004). The use of sworn police officers in Western Australia as specialized and dedicated crime investigators pose a challenge in the crime investigation. Independent forensic analysis cannot impartially obtained from officers who are playing double roles as scientific experts and investigators. The Splatt case shows miscarriage of justice that led to the wrongly conviction of a person by depending on double roles of police as investigators and expert witnesses. Investigators must have a thorough scientific and forensic training in order to be able to collect and give concrete evidence and validate the material gathered at crime scenes. This essay discusses Western Australia Police model used for crime scene and forensic investigation while using Splatt case as a miscarriage of justice in South Australia as an example. Discussion There numerous models for crime scenes as well as forensic investigation. Each of the models has risks and benefits that come with them. Any expert evidence that contains forensic analysis has to be free of any influence. Forensic evidence and the body in charge have to be independent providing the findings on the ground as opposed to someone offering supporting evidence for the prosecution. If forensic evidence is not handled properly and scientifically, it can lead to wrongful convictions of innocent people (Smith & Bond, 2014). Using forensic procedures particularly DNA testing, evidence and profiling has been introduced in the mainstream system of criminal justice. Crime investigators must have received full forensic training and take over the scene of the crime work. There circumstances that need first responders to perform some recovery procedures prior to arrival of the investigators at the scene of crime where is the risk of the evidence being lost, destroyed or contaminated (Kaku, 2008). In circumstances whereby there is no need of crime scene being examined by the crime scene investigators, the first responders’ responsibilities may comprise more than documentation and preservation activities. These circumstances happen where the crime scene is found in a remote location, where crime scene investigators are not accessible, or where the response by the criminal justice system is not adequate. Whereas there are principles that guide crime investigations, local laws, regulations and rules govern the numerous activities performed by the crime scene investigators as well as the forensic process (Ubelaker, 2015). The rules relate to issues like how to get authority to access the scene, conducting investigation, handling evidence, and submitting physical evidence to the prescribed forensic laboratory. The crime scene investigators determine the evidence gathered at the crime scene admissibility. Inability to adhere to existing rules, regulations, and laws can result in the evidence being inadmissible in court. It is very critical for the people working at the crime scene to be fully aware and make sure proper compliance is followed to adhere to stipulated rules. Codes of professional conduct describe ethical obligations of people who are working at the crime scene (EC-Council, 2009). For a long time concerns with regard to jury competence been eased by the celebration of trial safeguards, show of confidence in the abilities of the jury, and recently through courses geared towards improving expert evidence presentation. The miscarriage of justice is said to have occurred in the case where Charles Splatt was convicted of murder by use forensic evidence (Triggs, Buckleton & Walsh, 2004). A contention over scientific and forensic evidence was the basis for a Royal Commission that freed Edward Charles Splatt from prison after six and half years of being in incarceration. On the third day of December in the year 1977 Mrs. Rosa Simper was discovered murdered in her home in South Australia (Fraser, 2010). Charles Splatt was subsequently arrested and then charged with the murder in 1978. The case used only forensic and scientific evidence in convincing a Supreme Court jury to convict Splatt. He was later sentenced to life imprisonment. It took the intervention of Stewart Cockburn, The Adelaide Advertiser investigative journalist to raise interest in the case. He interviewed jurors, read trial transcripts and began to go through painstakingly the complex scientific evidence used to convict Splatt. Cockburn by May 1981 was convinced beyond doubt that Splatt was innocent and he wrote a series of his articles in The Adelaide Advertiser that shows how gross miscarriage of justice had happened (Tilley & Ford, 1996). Investigative journalism by Cockburn and the persistent publications of the articles in The Adelaide Advertiser compelled a Royal Commission to take interest in the Splatt case headed by Carl Shannon. The Royal Commission listed to evidence for 196 days and concluded that it was dangerous and unjust to permit conviction to remain the Splatt case. On 2nd August 1984, Charles Splatt was set free from prison and pardoned. He was duly compensated by the Government of South Australia for being falsely imprisoned. He was paid $300,000 for wrongful imprisonment. Shannon Royal Commission criticized the conduct of the trial particularly the expert witnesses’ operations (Cross, 2010). The Splatt case was considered to be a miscarriage of justice in South Australia. The commission adopted recommendations given by scientific experts that were invited from the United Kingdom and they explained how proper procedure should have been carried out. The statements from expert witnesses were taken as scientific proof rather than opinion of the said experts. The scientists used in the case seemed to have dual role (Strange, 1999). When it came to analyzing what had been said and what was done it was almost impossible to tell whether it was done or said in the investigative role or in the proper scientific analysis capacity. These events could only occur in a criminal justice system that was defective and incorrect. It was observed that a system that had no distinction between deductions and scientific observations by police in their capacity to investigate was defective and had a forensic system that cannot be accepted (Cole, 2005). The dual roles by the police as scientific experts and investigators were incompatible. From the Splatt case it can be noted that police deductions cannot be considered as scientific evidence that can be used to convict a charged individual (Cox, 1999). Most of the expert witnesses in the Splatt case were giving their own personal deductions which were mistakenly considered by the jury and the judge as scientific evidence to nail the suspect and place him in the scene of murder (Petrovich, 1990). A botanist from the University of Tasmania criticized the methodology applied Mr. Kuchel in identifying the seeds under their microscopic appearance. The Frank Moral report requested by the Harrison Commission reached a conclusion that the scientific reports pointed to the fact that the investigations that led to the conviction of Splatt was slipshod and unscientific. The foam evidence that had convinced the Court of Criminal appeal was subsequently invalidated (Mann, 2010). The commission observed that there was inadequate expert assistance extended to the defense and the expertise of one of the investigating scientists was questionable. In criminal case that requires forensic evidence proper procedures have to be followed and the defense has to be well informed of every step that is taken (Evans, 2003). It was a miscarriage of justice and inconsistence in procedure to deny the defense to expert assistance to help them understand the forensic evidence gathered. Independent forensic experts and scientists need to be used in order to validate the evidence that is gathered and preserved from the crime scene (Aitken & Taroni, 2004). The Western Australia used of a model that uses sworn police officers as specialized and dedicated crime scene investigators is a cause of concern where scientific proof is required. The Splatt case shows incidences whereby police officers opinions are taken as scientific proof for crime committed. The commission’s report was critical of the methodology used by Sergeant Cocks as a forensic investigator and poked holes on the theories and opinions that did not contain any proper scientific foundation. Scientists commenting on the report said that all traces of materials at the crime scene have to be thoroughly examined (Smith & Bond, 2014). The Frank Moral report asked for an examination of the missing links in the system for applying forensic evidence in trials. Scientific experts contributing to the report criticized the investigation methodology of the South Australian Police as being as woefully inadequate and unscientific. The management at the Technical Service Division as lacking independence as well as having inadequate communications of channels and did not out rightly define the roles and the expertise of scientific experts in the assistance of forensic services. During Splatt trial the jury accepted explanation of evidence by Cocks and a unanimous decision was reached. Splatt was found guilty for the murder of Mrs. Simper. The evidence given by Sergeant Cocks was not in any way scientific and independent observers poked holes into it. Splatt was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment (Sangha, Moles, Roach, 2010). His appeals were dismissed but his effort to publicize the case bore fruits where he detailed the errors made by police and used journalist Stewart Cockburn. Cockburn was convinced beyond any doubt that the police misrepresented and misunderstood the scientific evidence in the trial. Cockburn vehemently argued that in his articles in the media that Splatt was innocent for the crime that he had been convicted for (Houck & Siegel, 2010). Cockburn incessantly called for an independent examination of the investigation done by the police through a Royal Commission. Cockburn efforts made other organizations to take interest in the case. The mounted pressure led to the review of the case and the manner in which the trial was conducted by a Royal Commission. The commission determined that quoted statements they were not in any way scientific statements and they further contained the indicia of suggestions from a police investigation. Mere suggestions could not be used as scientific truths that could implicate and convict the accused (Stefanovic, 2000). The use of sworn police officers in Western Australia opens a Pandora box for mischief that can lead to miscarriage of justice due to inadequate scientific and forensic evidence as was the case in South Australia in Splatt case. The commission wondered why Cocks was permitted to express the theories and opinions in his evidence. The experts in the commission wondered whether Cocks was giving his evidence as a scientist or a police investigator (Bowers, 2010). The confusion of evidence is persistent was persistent in the case. The commissioner observed that the observations in the case should have been counter checked by an observer who is independent. Proper checks needed have to be done prior to initializing the notes (Jamieson & Moenssens, 2009). The double roles played by the Western Police as investigators and experts can lead to the challenges that were witnessed in the Splatt case where independent experts from the United Kingdom concluded that proper procedure was not followed. Since the miscarriage of justice in the Splatt case there have been in forensic services in Australia that promise to improve evidence gathering, preservation and presentation during trials. There is a positive change in the delivery and coordination of forensic services since the year 2006. Forensic testing backlog has been removed and interested parties can now rely on the forensic services’ quality as well as timeliness (Pyrek, 2010). However, the manner which the police are used in the case is very important. The role of the police particularly in Western Australia has to be defined clearly. Where they are used as experts they must have the required training to give scientific backing to their theories. Mere suggestions by the police need not to be taken as evidence to convict a person during a trial (Petherick, Turvey, & Ferguson, 2009). The use of forensic evidence is very important particularly in rape cases or other criminal trials but proper procedures have to be followed to ensure the accused get a fair hearing that cannot lead to wrongful conviction. It is important to focus on the scientific truths instead of mere opinions of investigators (Garrett, 2011). The police in Western Australia have to be thoroughly trained in forensic evidence gathering and their role in the prosecution clearly defined. Conclusion The use of police as expert witness as well as investigators brings conflict of interests where the investigators are eager to prove their case as expert witnesses. As recommended in the Shannon commission there is need for independent observers to validate forensic evidence using scientific means and not mere opinions that can fix the charged person. The defense has to be allowed to access the forensic evidence and be given expert assistance in understanding the evidence presented in court against their client. Bypassing the rules and rushing through the evidence is a miscarriage of justice. The inherent problems in forensic evidence have to be addressed as urgently as possible. Western Australia use of sworn police officers as being investigators as well as specialized experts brings the problem of double roles being played by the police. The role of the police has to be defined clearly to avoid confusion in the evidence. If the police do everything from the gathering of forensic evidence and the scientific analysis, there can be a conspiracy to ensure a conviction in order to justify the investigations that have been carried out by the police. Independent observers and experts have to be used to verify the authenticity of the evidence provided during the trial. References Aitken, C.G.G., & Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, London: John Wiley & Sons. Bell, S. (2008). Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, London: Infobase Publishing. Bowers, C. M. (2010). Forensic Dental Evidence: An Investigator's Handbook, London: Elsevier. Cole, S.A. (2005). More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95: (985), 1001–17. Cox, K. (1999). How DNA is Helping Police to Solve Crimes, The Queensland Police Journal, July, pp. 16–17. Cross, R. (2010). Evidence for Murder: How Physics Convicted a Killer, Sydney: UNSW Press. EC-Council. (2009). Computer Forensics: Investigating Network Intrusions and Cyber Crime, New Jersey: Cengage Learning. Evans, C. (2003).A Question of Evidence: The Casebook of Great Forensic Controversies, from Napoleon to O. J., New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Fraser, J. (2010). Forensic Science: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: OUP Oxford. Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the innocent, Harvard: Harvard University Press. Houck, M.M., & Siegel, J.A. (2010). Fundamentals of Forensic Science, London: Academic Press. Horswell, J. (2004). The Practice of Crime Scene Investigation, New York: CRC Press. Jamieson, A. & Moenssens, A. (2009). Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Kaku, M. (2008). Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel, Tokyo: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Mann, T. (2010). Flawed Forensics: The Splatt Case and Stewart Cockburn, Sydney: DoctorZed Publishing. Petrovich, S. (1990). DNA Typing: A Rush to Judgment, Georgia Law Review, 24, Spring,pp. 669-704 Petherick, W., Turvey, B.E., & Ferguson, C.E. (2009). Forensic Criminology, New York: Academic Press. Pyrek, K. (2010). Forensic Science under Siege: The Challenges of Forensic Laboratories and the Medico-Legal Investigation System, London: Academic Press. Sangha, B., Moles, R.N., Roach, K. (2010). Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice: The Rhetoric Meets the Reality, Melbourne: Irwin Law. Smith, L., & Bond, J. (2014). Criminal Justice and Forensic Science: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan. Strange C. (1999). Comment: “Capital Case Procedure Manual, 41 C.L.Q. 184. Stefanovic, M. (2000). Homicide: Burwood Triple Murders, Australian Police Journal, 54 (3), pp. 168–84. Triggs, C.M., Buckleton, J.S., & Walsh, S.J. (2004). Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation, CRC Press. Tilley, N. & Ford, A. (1996) Forensic Science and Crime Investigation, Home Office, Police Research Group. Ubelaker, D.H. (2015). The Global Practice of Forensic Science, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read More