The Role of Ballistics in the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

The Role of Ballistics in the Criminal Justice System and number submitted The Role of Ballistics inthe Criminal Justice System Forensic Science has gained much attention over the last decade, which is mainly due to the success and popularity of the television series, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Having been dubbed as “the most popular television show in the world,” CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has not only given birth to two other franchises, CSI: Miami and CSI: New York, but has changed the way the criminal justice system in the United States work (Shelton, 2008, p. 2). This so-called change has been nicknamed “the CSI Effect” (p. 2). Although at first there were no empirical evidence to back up this claim that criminal cases have been affected because the jurors are now more well-versed in Forensic Science through these television series—making it more difficult to get a guilty verdict as jurors require more forensic evidence—a study has been conducted on 1027 jurors that show that “46 % expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case” (Barak, Kim and Shelton, 2006 as cited in Shelton, 2008, p. 5). Now, because gun-related crimes continue to rise since 2002, with 68% of murders in the United States in the year 2006 being committed with the use of a firearm, it can be said that much of the scientific evidence being expected by jurors relate to ballistics, which is a specialized area in the field of Forensics (National Institute of Justice, 2010, para. 2). In fact, the study on “the CSI Effect” found that “32 % expected to see ballistic/firearms laboratory evidence in every criminal case” (p. 5). This introduction into Forensic Science and Ballistics does not only highlight their key role in crime-solving, but also emphasizes the role of scientific evidence in serving justice. It can be said, then, that no matter how the television series may have exaggerated some aspects of crime scene investigation, like the time the evidence is processed, it cannot be refuted that the field of Forensics and Ballistics play crucial roles in the criminal justice system—CSI Effect or not. Having established the importance of Forensic Science and Ballistics, I will now outline what this paper will contain. In the course of my paper I will provide background and history of the field and I will then examine the many changes undergone by ballistics in the 20th century. Case studies will be examined to highlight the points that I will be making. I will then conclude with some thoughts as to where the field may go in the future. Forensic Science Forensic Science, most commonly known by its shortened name of Forensics, is “a field of science dedicated to the methodical gathering and analysis of evidence to establish facts that can be presented in a legal proceeding” (Morgan, 2007, para. 1). In this sense, Forensic Science’s main objective is to be able to provide solid evidence that will stand in a court of law for the conviction—and sometimes the acquittal—of someone who has been officially charged with a crime. Hence, it can be said that the field of forensics exists, not only to solve crimes, but more importantly, to see that the perpetrator is given due punishment; in short, that justice is served. Although many of the scientific discoveries that made it possible for the establishment and rise of forensics as a valid scientific field like DNA were validated just in the last century, indications that the general concept of gathering and analyzing evidence to prove something show that it has been used ages ago—maybe even at the beginning of civilization as fingerprints in early (BCE) paintings suggest (Rudin and Inman, 2002, p. 1). History: 1950 to Present Many countries all over the world contributed to what is now known as the standard for forensics. By the 1950s, the world, as well as American society, has started to take notice of the importance of being able to present concrete evidence against criminals. Crime laboratories were being built and the study of criminology was being innovated by the invention and innovation of various tools for gathering evidence (Rudin and Inman, 2002, p. 4). For instance, luminol has already been developed to test for the presence of blood (p. 4). What is most notable is that in 1950, “Max Frei-Sulzer, founder of the first Swiss criminalistics laboratory, developed the tape lift method of collecting trace evidence” (p. 4). It can be seen here how the most basic technique of gathering evidence is still being discovered and developed. Likewise, techniques and methods that isolate certain chemical evidences were still being developed by scientists from all over the world during the second half of the 20th century. For instance, the 1950s saw the invention and application of the Breathalyzer by R. F. Borkenstein, while the 1960s saw the modification of the Ouchterlony antibody-antigen diffusion test by Swiss scientist Maurice Muller (pp. 4-5). This test simply determines the species of a blood sample. The 1970s proved to be a monumental decade for Forensic Science. Protocols for evidence collection and analysis were standardized, which is seen through the publication of Brian J. Culliford’s The Examination and Typing of Bloodstains in the Crime Laboratory and the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Evidence by the United States Supreme Court, which is “based on the relevancy standard in which scientific evidence that is deemed more prejudicial than probative may not be admitted” (Rudin and Inman, 2002, p. 5). More forensic procedures were developed throughout this decade—with the more notable ones being J. E. Wessel, P. F. Jones, Q. Y. Kwan, R. S. Nesbitt and E. J. Rattin’s process of detecting gunshot residue (GSR), Japanese trace evidence examiner Fuseo Matsumur’s development of latent prints using “Superglue fuming,” and the FBI’s creation and use of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) (p. 5). In 1984, Sir Alec Jeffreys created the very first DNA profiling test, which was successfully applied in a case to exonerate an innocent man and pinpoint with certainty based on scientific evidence that Colin Pitchfork is the one who killed two girls in the English Midlands (Rudin and Inman, 2002, p. 5). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based DNA testing was then the result of improving DNA profiling to produce more accurate results (p. 5). “In People v. Pestinikas, Edward Blake first used PCR-based DNA testing (HLA DQa), to confirm different autopsy samples to be from the same person. The evidence was accepted by a civil court. This was also the first use of any kind of DNA testing in the United States” (p. 5). In the next year, 1987, DNA profiling was first used as evidence in a criminal court in People v. Andrews, wherein the defendant was found guilty of committing a string of sexual assaults in Orlando, Florida (p. 6). This shows how, early on, the use of DNA profiling has perhaps hindered Andrews’ escalation to becoming a serial killer. That same year, the admissibility of DNA profiling as evidence in U.S. courts was contested in New York v. Castro (p. 6). This brought about “a call for certification, accreditation, standardization, and quality control guidelines for both DNA laboratories and the general forensic community” (p. 6). The 1990s saw the development of ballistics through the establishment of “the Integrated Ballistics Identification System, or IBIS, [and Drugfire] for comparison of the marks left on fired bullets, cartridge cases, and shell casings” (p. 6). The decade also marked the beginning of computerized systems in crime laboratories as seen through the creation of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the National Integrated Ballistics Network (NIBIN) (p. 6). Although the 21st century highlights modern technological advancements in the field of forensics in that new systems, equipment and tools are continually being invented and innovated to provide more accurate results faster, it is important to note that this period has also made it possible to discount and eliminate unsound forensic practices. For instance, comparative bullet-lead analysis, which is founded on the concept that “each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup,” was discredited due to it being “unreliable and potentially misleading” (Solomon, 2007, para. 3). This shows that although forensics is considered to be an exact science, much has yet to be done to perfect many of its procedures in obtaining 100% credible evidence. Ballistics Ballistics is a vital field in forensic. “Although, strictly speaking, ballistics is the science that deals with the motion of projectiles and the conditions that affect that motion, in criminal investigation, it has come to mean the specific study of firearms and bullets” (Evans, 2004, p. 20). Much can be learned about a crime scene from ballistic evidence, which indicates the velocity, direction, and substance of bullets or other projectiles used in the commission of a crime. There are several types of ballistics that are important to consider in any study of the subject. Internal ballistics describes how the bullet is fired from the gun. External ballistics is one of the most important as it is the study of how the bullet travels through space—this is important when determining the distance and place of projectile. Terminal ballistics is equally important. It describes the impact and what happened to the bullet. The field has expanded dramatically over the 20th century as computers have allowed investigators to model any number of different scenarios. Much has changed in a field that was once dominated by classical mechanics. Advancements in Ballistics: Successes and Failures The development of basic procedures in Ballistics, like the detection of GSR and the creation of IBIS, Drugfire and NBIN, shows how the science of ballistics has evolved throughout the decades. Prior to this, crucial to the evolution of ballistics is the establishment of the Bureau of Forensic Ballistics in New York, which pioneered the use of a microscope to compare groove patterns on bullets (Evans, 2004, p. 21). This is because it has been determined that when a bullet is fired from a gun and when it impacts, it imprints on the bullet unique grooves, technically called striations, that act as gun fingerprints. Furthermore, the size and hole of the wound can not only determine the trajectory of the bullet and the distance when fired, but also the type of firearm used as each firearm behaves in a unique way (Yount, 2007, pp. 82-83). “The mathematical probability of a duplication of the markings on a fatal bullet by those made upon another bullet fired from a different weapon is so remote as to permit an assumption that it is impossible” (Inbau, 1999, p. 1293). Until today, even though there are computerized systems for matching bullets, the final comparison has to be validated through the use of a microscope—although a much more advanced microscope (Evans, 2004, p. 22). The case of the Booth Derringer in 1997 shows how the science of ballistics, coupled with photographic imaging, dispel uncertainties that the Booth Derringer displayed at Ford’s Theatre was not authentic, due to a claim in a will by a deceased member of a burglary ring (pp. 33-34). Although there is a lot more to ballistics—mathematical computation, tool mark analysis, imaging and crime scene recreation tools to determine how the gun was fired—the basic concept lies in the fact that like people, guns have unique fingerprints that can be used to identify the gun that was used in a crime. Today, entering an image of a bullet used in a crime in IBIS and NIBIN can show whether or not that bullet has been fired from a gun that was used in a crime. It can be as specific as this or it can be as general as knowing the type of gun that was used. Either way, ballistics provide law enforcement officials with a lead. For instance, in the year 2000, a Houston court rightfully convicted Gilmar Guevarra of shooting and killing a security guard based on the successful matching in NIBIN of a .40 calibre Smith and Wesson cartridge found at the scene and one found at an open robbery case (Stevens, 2002, p. 69). If ballistics had not evolved in such a way that ballistic fingerprinting has been recognized as foolproof so as to have its own database, matching the bullets in this case would have been next to impossible and the police would not have been led to Guevarra. Furthermore, even if Guevarra was charged with the homicide, if there were no ballistic evidence to support it, chances are Guevarra could have been acquitted and lived as a free man until he has killed another person. One of the more amazing advances in ballistics is the area on acoustics and scene simulation. Through the use of a recording—if available—of the shooting, the acoustics can determine the distance when the gun was fired. This can help recreate a scene to a point that it can simulate the actual crime. However, the interpretation is not an exact science (Ramsland, 2010, p. 5). A good example for this is the case of the shooting incident which led to the death of Artie Mitchell by the hands of his brother, which happened in 1991 (p. 5). Jim was already caught red-handed with the gun in his hand minutes after the shooting as a 911 call made by Artie’s girlfriend was recorded (p. 5). The problem now is that while the prosecution claims pre-meditated murder as supported by evidence based on motive, the defense claimed it was not and that everything happened in the heat of the moment (p. 5). As the recording was analyzed and the scene simulated successfully, it was found that there were a gap of 30 seconds between the shots that were fired, which signifies intent to kill (p. 5). However, as the expert testified that the interpretation is not an exact science, Jim Mitchel was only convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 6 years (p. 5). This shows that no matter how damning the evidence may be and no matter how hi-tech the methods and equipment used in evidence collection, if there is no standard on the interpretation of the evidence—such as striation analysis where a bullet either matches another one or not—it still does not carry that much weight in court. Conclusion With the high percentage of crimes involving guns and other firearms, it can be deduced that forensic ballistics plays an important role in catching the right criminals and putting them in prison where they can do no further harm. For instance, when the striations of a bullet provides a match, there is a high chance that it can be used as crucial evidence, not only to determine the identity of the real perpetrator and close a case, but more importantly, to get a conviction. Because there is more than one aspect to ballistics—internal, external and terminal—there are a lot innovative equipment and technology that have yet to be created. Thus, the future of ballistics can be considered as bright, maybe making it as an exact science in its entirety in the near future. This will revolutionize police investigations where guns are concerned and may even minimize gun-related crimes as criminal offenders will become more and more scared of getting caught. However, because ballistics is just one aspect of forensic evidence, the evidence gathered should still support the results of the ballistic analysis for it to be considered valid and for its successful use in court. Although there are innumerable cases wherein ballistic evidence became the nail in a criminal’s coffin as shown by the cases examined in this paper, the science is not completely foolproof. It is vulnerable to tampering, as with other types of forensic evidence. Furthermore, it also relies on other fields of forensic science and even criminal investigative techniques, as well as litigation strategies, as shown in the Gwaltney case, wherein a California highway patrolman was convicted of rape and murder only after 2 mistrials due to lacking ballistic evidence (Evans, 2004, pp. 97-98). It is limited by what other forensic evidence on the case say. It is also limited by the meticulousness, diligence and thoroughness of the crime scene investigators and forensic scientists. If the bullets in the trunk of Gwaltney’s cruiser had been noticed earlier, it is possible that he could have been convicted the first time. On a positive light, if it had not been noticed at all, then Gwaltney could have lived his life a free man, with the support of his fellow highway patrolmen as solid character witnesses and with lack of damning physical evidence. References Evans, C. (2004). Murder two: The second casebook of forensic detection. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Inbau, F. E. (1999). Firearms identification - "ballistics." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89(4), p. 1293. National Institute of Justice. (2010). Gun violence. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/ Ramsland, K. (2010). A difference between life and death. Tru Crime Library. Retrieved from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/ballistics/5.html Rudin, N. and Inman, K. (2002). Forensic science timeline. Retrieved from http://www.forensicdna.com/Timeline020702.pdf Shelton, D. A. (2008). The CSI effect: Does it really exist? USA: National Institute of Justice. Solomon, J. (2007, November 18). FBIs forensic test full of holes. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html Stevens, L. (2002, October). Science on the case. Popular Science, pp. 68-69. Yount, L. (2007). Forensic science: From fibers to fingerprints. New York, NY: Chelsea House. Read More