In this case study I will examine the forensic evidence (limited to the main ballistic evidence), that was presented in the criminal trials and the forensic evidence that was introduced by the prosecution.…
The most important fact that makes forensic evidence circumstantial is because science cannot be clearly defined by law. The legal system have created standards and written legal rules regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence. When forensic evidence that is presented in court is rarely unaccompanied by an expert witness to provide the court room with a professional explanation backing the reliability of the forensic process used to collect the relevant evidence. This is one the major obstacles in the modern courtroom. Expert witnesses are intended to provide the court with a detailed description of the forensic evidence being presented and how that evidence was analyzed through the use of forensic science. This makes an expert witness’s testimony a testimony to probability and circumstance, rather than actual fact. Consequently, the forensic evidence that is presented is ruled as circumstantial.…
The next step is for the investigator to take notes of the crime scene. The process of note taking should be extensive, containing even notes they may seem insignificant but may become valuable evidence later (Fisher & Fisher, 2012). At this point evidence should not be moved or touched. Next pictures are taken at the crime just as it happened. The pictures should include scales to show accuracy in the evidence produced. Next is sketching the areas where the evidence was found is a way to support the picture evidence at court. The sketches should be accurate and contain measurements of the scene.…
Forensic evidence has been used since the beginning of investigating. It could be anything from ammunition, to a handprint on the door, to the drops of blood on the crime scene. As seen in “Forensic Evidence” by Andrea Campbell, the indisputable forensic evidence is the best kind to use in a trial.…
As a Crime Scene Investigator (CSI), there are duties that have to be met and a job that has to get done. Part of this job is looking for evidence. There are different types of evidence. Some can be seen with an unaided eye and some can't. Trace evidence cannot be seen with an unaided eye. Every person who is physically involved with a crime leaves some kind of trace evidence such as hair, fibers, and even have gunshot residue left on the perpetrators hands. It is even possible to obtain a confession from the suspect .…
1. It is important to use proper methods while collecting evidence from a crime scene because evidence is extremely important in solving a crime, and improper collection could corrupt the entire investigation. Evidence may become contaminated if proper methods are not used, which could severely effect analysis outcomes. Additionally, specific procedures must be followed for evidence to be used in a court room. Therefore, it is extremely important to gather evidence with proper methods in order for that evidence to be useful in a court of law.…
Direct and circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence in that direct evidence can directly support the case and prove probable cause on its own where circumstantial evidence is when the evidence indirectly supports the case. An example of circumstantial evidence would be something like “I observed the suspect enter the victim’s house, and I then heard a shot. I saw the suspect calmly walk out of the house, furtively look around, get in his car and drive off.” This differs from direct evidence, as direct evidence requires you to observe the act as it happens. This statement would look something like this: “I observed the suspect walk up to the victim, argue with him, and then pull out a gun and shoot the victim. He then ran to his car and drove off.” These are two very different statements, and mean two very different…
Evidence can be as diverse as people; however, when looking to collect any type of evidence, it will typically be separated into one of two categories: real evidence or testimonial. Real evidence is considered to be tangible, such as, it will be anything that the five senses can perceive (Worral, Hemmens, & Nored, 2012, p. 71). Articles of clothing, weapons, contracts or legal documentation, and photographs are all examples of tangible / real evidence. Additionally, within this same category of real evidence, “demonstrative” evidence will also be included. This type of evidence would be anything that can actually demonstrate the crime and/or scene. For example, a technician…
Evidence is any information gathered at the scene of a crime that may be relevant to a criminal investigation. There are different types of evidence that varies from Paperwork, Photographs, DNA, Finger prints; etc... These different kinds of evidence also require different types of opinions and explanations. Analyzing DNA is the best way to get your evidence. Every effort must be made to ensure that evidence is not lost, damaged, or contaminated. Evidence has many different roles in the investigation of a crime. It can link…
Direct evidence proves a fact without interference and does not require any reasoning to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. Basically it can prove a fact by itself. Everything a witness saw, heard, found, etc. are examples of direct evidence.…
Critical to the understanding of how evidence is presented at trial is understanding how evidence is defined. Knowledge of the rules governing evidence is also essential. This paper introduces several basic but key terms, with particular emphasis on the Federal Rules of Evidence. These definitions should in nowise be construed as complete or authoritative as it is intended to introduce the basic concept as it relates to criminal justice practices.…
Similar fact evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence is not a eyewitness, the evidence is circumstantial.…
Often times lines become blurred regarding inductions and deductive reasoning as they apply to forensic sciences. Inductions are described by Thornton (1997b, p. 13) as an inference that is derived by specific observations to a generalization, or an assumption that may not always be valid. On the other hand, a deductive reasoning is defined as a forensics-evidence-based, process-oriented method of investigative reasoning based off of the behavioral patterns of a particular offender (Turvey, 1999). Historically, forensic scientists have failed to recognize the importance of inductions and deductive reasoning as a critical process in conducting investigations. Thus resulting in a hypothesis being falsely categorized as a deductive conclusion; when in fact it remains nothing more than a statement until supported by follow on testing (Thornton & Kirk, 1997).…
Does all evidences can be used to convict a person? Circumstantial evidence is an indirect evidence that relies on connection with a particular case, but can’t be used as a proving alone. People have different thought of should circumstantial evidence can be use to convict a person. In my opinion, circumstantial evidence should never use for declaration of guilt because of the following reason. First, it is not credible. Second, It does not contain any or non scientific analysis. Last but not least, Because of circumstantial evidence, many innocent people are punished.…
Beaufort-Moore, D. (2009) Crime Scene Management and Evidence Recovery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2 (p26- 37)…