Explaining Forensics

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

1 Introduction

Red Huber-Pool/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Distinguish between forensic science and criminalistics.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Outline the main historical developments of forensic science. Describe the organization and services of a typical comprehensive crime laboratory in the criminal justice system. Understand what specialized forensic services, aside from the crime laboratory, are generally available to law enforcement personnel. Explain how physical evidence is analyzed and presented in the courtroom by the forensic scientist, and how admissibility of evidence is determined in the courtroom.

Casey Anthony: The Csi Effect?

Few criminal proceedings have captured the attention of the American public or have invoked stronger emotions than the Casey Anthony murder trial. How could a defendant who failed to report her two-year-old child missing for thirty-one days walk away scot-free from a murder conviction? This case had all the makings of a strong circumstantial case for the state.

The state’s theory was that Casey used chloroform to render her daughter unconscious, placed duct tape over Caylee’s mouth and nose, and kept the body in the trunk for several days before disposing of it. Caylee’s decomposed remains were discovered more than five months after she was reported missing.

Have TV forensic dramas created an environment in the courtroom that necessitates the existence of physical evidence to directly link a defendant to a crime scene? The closest the state came to a direct link was a hair found in the trunk of Casey’s car. However, the DNA test on the hair could link the hair only to Caylee’s maternal relatives: Casey, Casey’s mother (Caylee’s maternal grandmother), and Casey’s brother (Caylee’s uncle). And Caylee herself. No unique characteristics were found to link the duct tape on the body with that found in the Anthony home.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

No DNA, no fingerprints, no conviction.

Go to www.pearsonhighered.com/careersresources to access Webextras for this chapter.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Definition and Scope of Forensic Science Forensic science, in its broadest definition, is the application of science to law. As our society has grown more complex, it has become more dependent on rules of law to regulate the activities of its members. Forensic science applies the knowledge and technology of science to the definition and enforcement of such laws.

Each year, as government finds it increasingly necessary to regulate the activities that most intimately influence our daily lives, science merges more closely with civil and criminal law. Consider, for example, the laws and agencies that regulate the quality of our food, the nature and potency of drugs, the extent of automobile emissions, the kind of fuel oil we burn, the purity of our drinking water, and the pesticides we use on our crops and plants. It would be difficult to conceive of a food or drug regulation or environmental protection act that could be effectively monitored and enforced without the assistance of scientific technology and the skill of the scientific community.

Laws are continually being broadened and revised to counter the alarming increase in crime rates. In response to public concern, law enforcement agencies have expanded their patrol and investigative functions, hoping to stem the rising tide of crime. At the same time, they are looking more to the scientific community for advice and technical support for their efforts.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Can the technology that put astronauts on the moon, split the atom, and eradicated most dreaded diseases be enlisted in this critical battle?

Unfortunately, science cannot offer final and authoritative solutions to problems that stem from a maze of social and psychological factors. However, as the content of this book attests, science occupies an important and unique role in the criminal justice system—a role that relates to the scientist’s ability to supply accurate and objective information about the events that have occurred at a crime scene. A good deal of work remains to be done if the full potential of science as applied to criminal investigations is to be realized.

Because of the vast array of civil and criminal laws that regulate society, forensic science, in its broadest sense, has become so comprehensive a subject that a meaningful introductory textbook treating its role and techniques would be difficult to create and probably overwhelming to read. For this reason, we have narrowed the scope of the subject according to the most common definition: Forensic science is the application of science to the criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system. “Forensic science” is an umbrella term encompassing a myriad of professions that use their skills to aid law enforcement officials in conducting their investigations.

The diversity of professions practicing forensic science is illustrated by the eleven sections of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the largest forensic science organization in the world:

1. Criminalistics 2. Digital and Multimedia Sciences 3. Engineering Science 4. General 5. Jurisprudence

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

�. Odontology 7. Pathology/Biology �. Physical Anthropology 9. Psychiatry/Behavioral Science

10. Questioned Documents 11. Toxicology

Even this list of professions is not exclusive. It does not encompass skills such as fingerprint examination, firearm and tool mark examination, and photography.

Obviously, to author a book covering all of the major activities of forensic science as they apply to the enforcement of criminal and civil laws by police agencies would be a major undertaking. Thus, this book will further restrict itself to discussions of the subjects of chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and computer technology, which are useful for determining the evidential value of crime-scene and related evidence. Forensic pathology, psychology, anthropology, and odontology also encompass important and relevant areas of knowledge and practice in law enforcement, each being an integral part of the total forensic science service that is provided to any up-to-date criminal justice system. However, these subjects go beyond the intended scope of this book, and except for brief discussions, along with pointing the reader to relevant websites, the reader is referred elsewhere for discussions of their applications and techniques. Instead, this book focuses on the services of what has popularly become known as the crime laboratory, where the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences are practiced and applied to the analysis of crime-scene evidence.

For many, the term “criminalistics” seems more descriptive than “forensic science” for describing the services of a crime laboratory. Regardless of his or her title—“criminalist” or “forensic scientist”—the trend of events has

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

made the scientist in the crime laboratory an active participant in the criminal justice system.

The CSI Effect

Prime-time television shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have greatly increased the public’s awareness of the use of science in criminal and civil investigations (see Figure 1-1 ). However, by simplifying scientific procedures to fit the allotted airtime, these shows have created within both the public and the legal community, unrealistic expectations of forensic science. In these shows, members of the CSI team collect evidence at the crime scene, process all evidence, question witnesses, interrogate suspects, carry out search warrants, and testify in court. In the real world, these tasks are almost always delegated to different people in different parts of the criminal justice system. Procedures that in reality could take days, weeks, months, or years appear on these shows to take mere minutes. This false image is significantly responsible for the public’s high interest in and expectations for DNA evidence.

Figure 1-1

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

A scene from CSI, a forensic science television show. SUN/Newscom

The dramatization of forensic science on television has led the public to believe that every crime scene will yield forensic evidence, and it produces unrealistic expectations that a prosecutor’s case should always be bolstered and supported by forensic evidence. This phenomenon is known as the “CSI effect.” Some jurists believe that this phenomenon ultimately detracts from the search for truth and justice in the courtroom.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

History and Development of Forensic Science Forensic science owes its origins, first, to the individuals who developed the principles and techniques needed to identify or compare physical evidence and, second, to those who recognized the need to merge these principles into a coherent discipline that could be practically applied to a criminal justice system.

The roots of forensic science reach back many centuries, and history records a number of instances in which individuals closely observed evidence and applied basic scientific principles to solve crimes. Not until relatively recently, however, did forensic science take on the more careful and systematic approach that characterizes the modern discipline.

Early Developments

One of the earliest records of applying forensics to solve criminal cases comes from third-century China. A manuscript titled Yi Yu Ji (“A Collection of Criminal Cases”) reports how a coroner solved a case in which a woman was suspected of murdering her husband and burning the body, claiming that he died in an accidental fire. Noticing that the husband’s corpse had no ashes in its mouth, the coroner performed an experiment to test the

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

woman’s story. He burned two pigs—one alive and one dead—and then checked for ashes inside the mouth of each. He found ashes in the mouth of the pig that was alive before it was burned, but none in the mouth of the pig that was dead beforehand. The coroner thus concluded that the husband, too, was dead before his body was burned. Confronted with this evidence, the woman admitted her guilt. The Chinese were also among the first to recognize the potential of fingerprints as a means of identification.

Although cases such as that of the Chinese coroner are noteworthy, this kind of scientific approach to criminal investigation was for many years the exception rather than the rule. Limited knowledge of anatomy and pathology hampered the development of forensic science until the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. For example, the first recorded notes about fingerprint characteristics were prepared in 1686 by Marcello Malpighi, a professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna in Italy. Malpighi, however, did not acknowledge the value of fingerprints as a method of identification. The first scientific paper about the nature of fingerprints did not appear until more than a century later, but it also did not recognize their potential as a form of identification.

Initial Scientific Advances

As physicians gained a greater understanding of the workings of the body, the first scientific treatises on forensic science began to appear, such as the 1798 work “A Treatise on Forensic Medicine and Public Health” by the French physician François-Emanuel Fodéré. Breakthroughs in chemistry at this time also helped forensic science take significant strides forward. In 1775, the Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele devised the first successful test for detecting the poison arsenic in corpses. By 1806, the German chemist Valentin Ross had discovered a more precise method for

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

detecting small amounts of arsenic in the walls of a victim’s stomach. The most significant early figure in this area was Mathieu Orfila (see Figure 1- 2 ), a Spaniard who is considered the father of forensic toxicology. In 1814, Orfila published the first scientific treatise on the detection of poisons and their effects on animals. This treatise established forensic toxicology as a legitimate scientific endeavor.

Figure 1-2

Mathieu Orfila. Matthieu Orfila/The Granger Collection

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

The mid-1800s saw a spate of advances in several scientific disciplines that furthered the field of forensic science. In 1828, William Nichol invented the polarizing microscope. Eleven years later, Henri-Louis Bayard formulated the first procedures for microscopic detection of sperm. Other developments during this time included the first microcrystalline test for hemoglobin (1853) and the first presumptive test for blood (1863). Such tests soon found practical applications in criminal trials. Toxicological evidence at trial was first used in 1839, when a Scottish chemist named James Marsh testified that he had detected arsenic in a victim’s body. During the 1850s and 1860s, the new science of photography was also used in forensics to record images of prisoners and crime scenes.

Late-Nineteenth-Century Progress

By the late nineteenth century, public officials were beginning to apply knowledge from virtually all scientific disciplines to the study of crime. Anthropology and morphology (the study of the structure of living organisms) were applied to the first system of personal identification, devised by the French scientist Alphonse Bertillon in 1879. Bertillon’s system, which he dubbed “anthropometry,” was a procedure that involved taking a series of bodily measurements as a means of distinguishing one individual from another (see Figure 1-3 ). For nearly two decades, this system was considered the most accurate method of personal identification. Bertillon’s early efforts earned him the distinction of being known as the “father of criminal identification.”

Figure 1-3

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Bertillon’s system of bodily measurements used for the identification of an individual. Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Youngsville, NC, www.sirchie.com

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

The Advent of Fingerprinting

Bertillon’s anthropometry, however, would soon be supplanted by a more reliable method of identification: fingerprinting. Two years before the publication of Bertillon’s system, U.S. microscopist Thomas Taylor had suggested that fingerprints could be used as a means of identification, but his ideas were not immediately followed up. Three years later, the Scottish physician Henry Faulds made a similar assertion in a paper published in the journal Nature. However, it was the Englishman Francis Henry Galton who undertook the first definitive study of fingerprints and developed a methodology of classifying them for filing. In 1892, Galton published a book titled Finger Prints that contained the first statistical proof supporting the uniqueness of fingerprints and the effectiveness of his method. His book went on to describe the basic principles that would form our present system of identification by fingerprints.

The first treatise describing the application of scientific disciplines to the field of criminal investigation was written by Hans Gross in 1893. Gross, a public prosecutor and judge in Graz, Austria, spent many years studying and developing principles of criminal investigation. In his classic book Handbuch für Untersuchungsrichter als System der Kriminalistik (later published in English under the title Criminal Investigation), he detailed the assistance that investigators could expect from the fields of microscopy, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anthropometry, and fingerprinting. He later introduced the forensic journal Archiv für Kriminal Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, which still reports improved methods of scientific crime detection.

Ironically, the best-known figure in nineteenth-century forensics is not a real person but a fictional character: the legendary detective Sherlock Holmes (see Figure 1-4 ). Many people today believe that Holmes’s creator, Sir

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Arthur Conan Doyle, had a considerable influence on popularizing scientific crime-detection methods. In adventures with his partner and biographer, Dr. John Watson, Holmes was the first to apply the newly developing principles of serology (the study of blood and bodily fluids), fingerprinting, firearms identification, and questioned-document examination long before their value was recognized and accepted by real-life criminal investigators. Holmes’s feats excited the imagination of an emerging generation of forensic scientists and criminal investigators. Even in the first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887, we find examples of Doyle’s uncanny ability to describe scientific methods of detection years before they were actually discovered and implemented. For instance, here Holmes explains the potential usefulness of forensic serology to criminal investigation:

Figure 1-4

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective Sherlock Holmes applied many of the principles of modern forensic science long before they were adopted widely by real-life police. Ostill/Shutterstock

“I’ve found it. I’ve found it,” he shouted to my companion, running toward us with a test tube in his hand. “I have found a reagent which is precipitated by hemoglobin and by nothing else… . Why, man, it is the most practical medico-legal discovery for years. Don’t you see that it gives us an infallible test for bloodstains?… The old guaiacum test was very clumsy and uncertain. So is the microscopic examination for blood corpuscles. The latter is valueless if the stains are a few hours old. Now, this appears to act as well whether the blood is old or new. Had this test been invented, there are hundreds of men now walking the earth who would long ago

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

have paid the penalty of their crimes… . Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A man is suspected of a crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or clothes are examined and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they bloodstains, or rust stains, or fruit stains, or what are they? That is a question which has puzzled many an expert, and why? Because there was no reliable test. Now we have the Sherlock Holmes test, and there will no longer be any difficulty.”

Twentieth-Century Breakthroughs

The pace of technological change quickened considerably in the twentieth century, and with it the rate of advancements in forensic science. In 1901, Dr. Karl Landsteiner discovered that blood can be grouped into different categories, now recognized as the blood types A, B, AB, and O. The possibility that blood grouping could be useful in identifying an individual intrigued Dr. Leone Lattes, a professor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turin in Italy. In 1915, Lattes devised a relatively simple procedure for determining the blood group of the dried blood in a bloodstain, a technique that he immediately applied to criminal investigations.

At around the same time, Albert S. Osborn was conducting pioneering work in document examination. In 1910, Osborn wrote the first significant text in this field, Questioned Documents. This book is still a primary reference for document examiners. Osborn’s development of fundamental principles of document examination was responsible for the acceptance of documents as scientific evidence by the courts.

One of the most important contributors to the field in the early twentieth century was the Frenchman Edmond Locard (see Figure 1-5 ). Although

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Hans Gross was a pioneering advocate for the use of the scientific method in criminal investigations, Locard first demonstrated how the principles enunciated by Gross could be incorporated within a workable crime laboratory. Locard’s formal education was in both medicine and law. In 1910, he persuaded the Lyons Police Department to give him two attic rooms and two assistants to start a police laboratory. During Locard’s first years of work, the instruments available to him were a microscope and a rudimentary spectrometer. However, his enthusiasm quickly overcame the technical and budgetary deficiencies he encountered, and from these modest beginnings, Locard conducted research and made discoveries that became known throughout the world by forensic scientists and criminal investigators. Eventually he became the founder and director of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyons, which quickly developed into a leading international center for study and research in forensic science.

Figure 1-5

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Edmond Locard. Roger Viollet/The Image Works

Locard asserted that when two objects come into contact with each other a cross-transfer of materials occurs (Locard’s exchange principle ). He strongly believed that every criminal can be connected to a crime by dust particles carried from the crime scene. This concept was reinforced by a series of successful and well-publicized investigations. In one case, presented with counterfeit coins and the names of three suspects, Locard urged the police to bring the suspects’ clothing to his laboratory. On careful examination, he located small metallic particles in all the garments. Chemical analysis revealed that the particles and coins were composed of exactly the same metallic elements. Confronted with this evidence, the suspects were arrested and soon confessed to the crime. After World War

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

I, Locard’s successes inspired the formation of police laboratories in Vienna, Berlin, Sweden, Finland, and Holland.

The Rise of the Microscope

The microscope came into widespread use in forensic science during the twentieth century, and its applications grew dramatically. Perhaps the leading figure in the field of microscopy was Dr. Walter C. McCrone. During his lifetime, McCrone became the world’s preeminent microscopist. Through his books, journal publications, and research institute, he was a tireless advocate for applying microscopy to analytical problems, particularly forensic science cases. McCrone’s exceptional communication skills made him a much-sought-after instructor, and he educated thousands of forensic scientists throughout the world in the application of microscopic techniques. Dr. McCrone used microscopy, often in conjunction with other analytical methodologies, to examine evidence in thousands of criminal and civil cases throughout his long and illustrious career.

Another trailblazer in forensic applications of microscopy was U.S. Army Colonel Calvin Goddard, who refined the techniques of firearms examination by using the comparison microscope. Goddard’s work allows investigators to determine whether a particular gun has fired a bullet by comparing the bullet with another that is test-fired from the suspect’s weapon. From the mid-1920s on, his expertise established the comparison microscope as the indispensable tool of the modern firearms examiner.

Modern Scientific Advances

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Since the mid-twentieth century, a revolution in computer technology has made possible a quantum leap forward in human knowledge. The resulting explosion of scientific advances has had a dramatic impact on the field of forensic science by introducing a wide array of sophisticated techniques for analyzing evidence related to a crime. Procedures such as chromatography, spectrophotometry, and electrophoresis (all discussed in later chapters) allow the modern forensic scientist to determine with astounding accuracy the identity of a substance and to connect even tiny fragments of evidence to a particular person and place.

Undoubtedly the most significant modern advance in forensic science has been the discovery and refinement of DNA typing in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Sir Alec Jeffreys developed the first DNA profiling test in 1984, and two years later he applied it for the first time to solve a crime, identifying Colin Pitchfork as the murderer of two young English girls. The same case also marked the first time DNA profiling established the innocence of a criminal suspect. Made possible by scientific breakthroughs in the 1950s and 1960s, DNA typing offers law enforcement officials a powerful tool for establishing the precise identity of a suspect, even when only a small amount of physical evidence is available. Combined with the modern analytical tools mentioned earlier, DNA typing has revolutionized the practice of forensic science (see Figure 1-6 ).

Figure 1-6

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Sir Alec Jeffreys. Homer Sykes/Alamy

Another significant recent development in forensics is the establishment of computerized databases to store information on physical evidence such as fingerprints, markings on bullets and shell casings, and DNA. These databases have proved to be invaluable, enabling law enforcement officials to compare evidence found at crime scenes to thousands of pieces of similar information. This has significantly reduced the time required to analyze evidence and increased the accuracy of the work done by police and forensic investigators.

Although this brief narrative is by no means a complete summary of historical advances in forensics, it provides an idea of the progress that has been made in the field by dedicated scientists and law enforcement personnel. Even Sherlock Holmes probably couldn’t have imagined the

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

extent to which science is applied in the service of criminal investigation today.

Quick Review Forensic science is the application of science to criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system. The first system of personal identification was called “anthropometry.” It distinguished one individual from another based on a series of bodily measurements. Forensic science owes its origins to individuals such as Bertillon, Galton, Lattes, Goddard, Osborn, and Locard, who developed the principles and techniques needed to identify and compare physical evidence. Locard’s exchange principle states that when two objects come into contact with each other, a cross-transfer of materials occurs that can connect a criminal suspect to his or her victim.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

History and Organization of Crime Laboratories The steady advance of forensic science technologies during the twentieth century led to the establishment of the first facilities specifically dedicated to forensic analysis of criminal evidence. These crime laboratories are now the centers for both forensic investigation of ongoing criminal cases and research into new techniques and procedures to aid investigators in the future.

History of Crime Labs in the United States

The oldest forensic laboratory in the United States is the Los Angeles Police Department, created in 1923 by August Vollmer, a police chief from Berkeley, California. In the 1930s, Vollmer headed the first U.S. university institute for criminology and criminalistics at the University of California at Berkeley. However, this institute lacked any official status in the university until 1948, when a school of criminology was formed. The famous criminalist Paul Kirk was selected to head the school’s criminalistics department. Many graduates of this school have gone on to develop forensic laboratories in other parts of the state and country.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

In 1932, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the directorship of J. Edgar Hoover, organized a national laboratory that offered forensic services to all law enforcement agencies in the country. During its formative stages, Hoover consulted extensively with business executives, manufacturers, and scientists, whose knowledge and experience guided the new facility through its infancy. The FBI Laboratory is now the world’s largest forensic laboratory, performing more than one million examinations every year (see Figure 1-7 ). Its accomplishments have earned it worldwide recognition, and its structure and organization have served as a model for forensic laboratories formed at the state and local levels in the United States as well as in other countries. Furthermore, the opening of the FBI’s Forensic Science Research and Training Center in 1981 gave the United States, for the first time, a facility dedicated to conducting research toward new and reliable scientific methods that can be applied to forensic science. This facility is also used to train crime laboratory personnel in the latest forensic science techniques and methods.

Figure 1-7

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(a)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(b)

(a) Exterior and (b) interior views of the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Virginia. Charles Dharapak/AP Images

Despite the existence of the FBI Laboratory, the United States has no national system of forensic laboratories. Instead, many local law enforcement jurisdictions—city, county, and state—each operate their own independent crime labs. California, for example, has numerous federal, state, county, and city crime laboratories, many of which operate independently. However, in 1972 the California Department of Justice created a network of integrated state-operated crime laboratories consisting of regional and satellite facilities. An informal exchange of information and expertise occurs within California’s criminalist community

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

through a regional professional society, the California Association of Criminalists. This organization is the forerunner of a number of regional organizations that have developed throughout the United States to foster cooperation among the nation’s growing community of criminalists.

Organization of a Crime Laboratory

The development of crime laboratories in the United States has been characterized by rapid growth accompanied by an unfortunate lack of national and regional planning and coordination. It is estimated that more than 411 public crime laboratories currently operate at various levels of government—federal, state, county, and municipal. The size and diversity of crime laboratories make it impossible to select any one model that best describes a typical crime laboratory. Although most of these facilities function as part of a police department, others operate under the direction of the prosecutor’s or district attorney’s office, and some work with the laboratories of the medical examiner or coroner. Far fewer are affiliated with universities or exist as independent agencies in government. Laboratory staff sizes range from one person to more than one hundred, and services offered may be quite diverse or very specialized, depending on the responsibilities of the agency that houses the laboratory.

The Growth of Crime Laboratories

Most existing crime laboratories have been organized by agencies that either foresaw their potential application to criminal investigations or were pressed by the increasing demands of casework. Several reasons explain the unparalleled growth of crime laboratories during the past forty years: Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s compelled police to place greater

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

emphasis on securing scientifically evaluated evidence. The requirement to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to counsel has all but eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool; successful prosecution of criminal cases requires a thorough and professional police investigation, frequently incorporating the skills of forensic science experts. Modern technology has provided forensic scientists with many new skills and techniques to meet the challenges accompanying their increased participation in the criminal justice system.

Coinciding with changing judicial requirements has been the staggering increase in crime rates in the United States over the past forty years. Although it seems that this factor alone could account for the increased use of crime laboratory services by police agencies, only a small percentage of police investigations generate evidence requiring scientific examination. There is one important exception, however: drug-related arrests. All illicit-drug seizures must be sent to a forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before the case can be adjudicated. Since the mid-1960s, drug abuse has accelerated to nearly uncontrollable levels and has resulted in crime laboratories being inundated with drug specimens.

A more recent contributor to the growth and maturation of crime laboratories has been the advent of DNA profiling. Since the early 1990s, this technology has progressed to the point of individualization or near- individualization of biological evidence. That is, traces of blood, semen stains, hair, and saliva residues left behind on stamps, cups, bite marks, and so on, can be positively linked to a criminal. To meet the demands of DNA technology, crime labs have expanded staff and in many cases modernized their physical plants. The labor-intensive demands and sophisticated requirements of DNA technology have affected the structure of the forensic laboratory as has no other technology in the past fifty years.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Likewise, DNA profiling has become the dominant factor in the general public’s perception of the workings and capabilities of the modern crime laboratory.

In coming years an estimated ten thousand forensic scientists will be added to the rolls of both public and private forensic laboratories to process crime-scene evidence for DNA and to acquire DNA profiles, as mandated by state laws, from the hundreds of thousands of individuals convicted of crimes. This endeavor has already added many new scientists to the field and will eventually more than double the number of scientists employed by forensic laboratories in the United States.

Crime Laboratories in the United States Historically, our federal system of government, combined with a desire to retain local control, has produced a variety of independent laboratories in the United States, precluding the creation of a national system. Crime laboratories to a large extent mirror the fragmented law enforcement structure that exists on the national, state, and local levels. The federal government has no single law enforcement or investigative agency with unlimited jurisdiction.

Four major federal crime laboratories have been created to help investigate and enforce criminal laws that extend beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of state and local forces. The FBI (Department of Justice) maintains the largest crime laboratory in the world. An ultramodern facility housing the FBI’s forensic science services is located in Quantico, Virginia. Its expertise and technology support its broad investigative powers. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) laboratories (Department of Justice) analyze drugs seized in violation of federal laws regulating the production, sale, and transportation of drugs. The laboratories of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Department of Justice) analyze

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

alcoholic beverages and documents relating to alcohol and firearm excise- tax enforcement and examine weapons, explosive devices, and related evidence to enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service maintains laboratories concerned with criminal investigations relating to the postal service. Each of these federal facilities offers its expertise to any local agency that requests assistance in relevant investigative matters.

The publication of Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States in 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences has served as a catalyst for improving the quality of research and development and standardization in the forensic sciences. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) within the Department of Commerce has emerged as a leading governmental agency in promoting the objectives advocated by Forensic Science: A Path Forward. Currently, NIST is active in these efforts by leading the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)—a series of committees and subcommittees designed to standardize forensic practices across numerous forensic science disciplines. NIST also has an active forensic research program carried out within the institute.

Most state governments maintain a crime laboratory to service state and local law enforcement agencies that do not have ready access to a laboratory. Some states, such as Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, and Florida, have developed a comprehensive statewide system of regional or satellite laboratories. These operate under the direction of a central facility and provide forensic services to most areas of the state. Having a regional laboratory that operates as part of a statewide system has increased the accessibility of many local law enforcement agencies to a crime laboratory, while minimizing duplication of services and ensuring maximum interlaboratory cooperation through the sharing of expertise and equipment.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Local laboratories provide services to county and municipal agencies. Generally, these facilities operate independent of the state crime laboratory and are financed directly by local government. However, as costs have risen, some counties have combined resources and created multicounty laboratories to service their jurisdictions. Many of the larger cities in the United States maintain their own crime laboratories, usually under the direction of the local police department. Frequently, a large population and high crime rates combine to make a municipal facility such as that of New York City, the largest crime laboratory in the state.

Crime Laboratories Abroad Like the United States, most countries in the world have created and now maintain forensic facilities. In contrast to the American system of independent local laboratories, Great Britain had developed a national system of regional laboratories under the direction of the government’s Home Office. In the early 1990s, the British Home Office reorganized the country’s forensic laboratories into the Forensic Science Service and instituted a system in which police agencies are charged a fee for services rendered by the laboratory. The fee-for-service concept encouraged the creation of a number of private laboratories that provide services to both police and criminal defense attorneys. One such organization is LGC. In 2010, the British government announced the closure of the Forensic Science Service, citing financial losses. The laboratories closed in 2012, and forensic work in England and Wales is now contracted out to the private sector. Since privatization, LGC has grown to be the largest forensic science provider in the United Kingdom, employing more than seven hundred forensic scientists servicing both police agencies and the private sector.

In Canada, forensic services are provided by three government-funded institutes: (1) three Royal Canadian Mounted Police regional laboratories,

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(2) the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto, and (3) the Institute of Legal Medicine and Police Science in Montreal. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police opened its first laboratory in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1937. Altogether, more than a hundred countries throughout the world have at least one laboratory facility offering services in the field of forensic science.

Services of the Crime Laboratory

Bearing in mind the independent development of crime laboratories in the United States, the wide variation in the services offered to different communities is not surprising. There are many reasons for this, including (1) variations in local laws, (2) the different capabilities and functions of the organization to which a laboratory is attached, and (3) budgetary and staffing limitations.

In recent years, many local crime laboratories have been created solely to process drug specimens. Often these facilities were staffed with few personnel and operated under limited budgets. Although many have expanded their forensic services, some still primarily perform drug analyses. Among crime laboratories providing services beyond drug identification, the diversity and quality of services rendered varies significantly. The following forensic science units might be found in a “full- service” crime laboratory.

Basic Services Provided by Full-Service Crime Laboratories

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Physical Science Unit The physical science unit applies principles and techniques of chemistry, physics, and geology to the identification and comparison of crime-scene evidence. It is staffed by criminalists who have the expertise to use chemical tests and modern analytical instrumentation to examine items as diverse as drugs, glass, paint, explosives, and soil. In a laboratory that has a staff large enough to permit specialization, the responsibilities of this unit may be further subdivided into drug identification, soil and mineral analyses, and examination of a variety of trace physical evidence.

Biology Unit The biology unit is staffed with biologists and biochemists who identify and perform DNA profiling on bloodstains and other dried body fluids, compare hairs and fibers, and identify and compare botanical materials such as wood and plants (see Figure 1-8 ).

Figure 1-8

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

A forensic scientist performing DNA analysis. Mauro Fermariello/Photo Researchers, Inc.

Firearms Unit The firearms unit examines firearms, discharged bullets, cartridge cases, shotgun shells, and ammunition of all types. Garments and other objects are also examined to detect firearm discharge residues and to approximate how far from a target a weapon was fired. The basic principles of firearms examination are also applied to comparing marks made by tools (see Figure 1-9 ).

Figure 1-9

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

A forensic analyst examining a firearm. Mediacolor’s/Alamy

Document Examination Unit The document examination unit studies the handwriting and typewriting on documents in question to ascertain their authenticity and/or source. Related responsibilities include analyzing paper and ink and examining indented writings (i.e., the partially visible depressions that appear on the sheet of paper that was underneath the one that was written on), obliterations, erasures, and burned or charred documents.

Photography Unit A complete photographic laboratory examines and records physical evidence. Its procedures may require the use of highly specialized

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

photographic techniques, such as digital imaging and infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray photography, to make invisible information visible to the naked eye. This unit also prepares photographic exhibits for courtroom presentation.

Optional Services Provided by Full- Service Crime Laboratories

Toxicology Unit The toxicology group examines body fluids and organs to determine the presence or absence of drugs and poisons. Frequently, such functions are shared with or may be the sole responsibility of a separate laboratory facility placed under the direction of the medical examiner’s or coroner’s office. In most jurisdictions, field instruments such as the intoxilyzer are used to determine how much alcohol an individual has consumed. Often the toxicology unit also trains operators of these instruments and maintains and services them.

Latent Fingerprint Unit The latent fingerprint unit processes and examines evidence for latent fingerprints when they are submitted in conjunction with other laboratory examinations.

Polygraph Unit The polygraph, or lie detector, has become an essential tool of the criminal investigator rather than the forensic scientist. However, during the

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

formative years of polygraph technology, many police agencies incorporated this unit into the laboratory’s administrative structure, where it sometimes remains today. In any case, its functions are handled by people trained in the techniques of criminal investigation and interrogation (see Figure 1-10 ).

Figure 1-10

An individual undergoing a polygraph test. Sandy SchaefferGetty Images

Voiceprint Analysis Unit In cases involving telephoned threats or tape-recorded messages, investigators may require the skills of the voiceprint analysis unit to tie the voice to a particular suspect. To this end, a good deal of casework has been performed with the sound spectrograph, an instrument that

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

transforms speech into a visual graphic display called a “voiceprint.” The validity of this technique as a means of personal identification rests on the premise that the sound patterns produced in speech are unique to the individual and that the voiceprint displays this uniqueness.

Crime-Scene Investigation Unit The concept of incorporating crime-scene evidence collection into the services forensic laboratories offer is slowly gaining ground in the United States. This unit dispatches specially trained personnel (civilian and/or police) to the crime scene to collect and preserve physical evidence that will be processed at the crime laboratory.

Whatever the organizational structure of a forensic science laboratory may be, specialization must not impede the overall coordination of services demanded by today’s criminal investigator. Laboratory administrators need to keep open the lines of communication between analysts (civilian and uniformed), crime-scene investigators, and police personnel. Inevitably, forensic investigations require the skills of many individuals. One notoriously high-profile investigation illustrates this process: the search for the source of the anthrax letters mailed shortly after September 11, 2001. Figure 1-11 shows one of the letters and illustrates the multitude of skills required in the investigation—skills possessed by forensic chemists and biologists, fingerprint examiners, and forensic document examiners.

WebExtra 1.1 Take a Virtual Tour of a Forensic Laboratory

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Figure 1-11

An envelope containing anthrax spores along with an anonymous letter was sent to the office of Senator Tom Daschle shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A variety of forensic skills were used to examine the envelope and letter. Also, bar codes placed on the front and back of the envelope by mail-sorting machines contain address information and information about where the envelope was first processed. FBI/Getty Images

C A S E F I L E S

Forensic Science Helps Unravel the Mystery of the Anthrax Letters*

In September and October 2001, at least five envelopes containing significant quantities of anthrax were mailed to United States

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Daschle in the District of Columbia and to media organizations located in New York City and Boca Raton, Florida. The two letters addressed to Senators Leahy and Daschle had the same fictitious return address. The four envelopes each contained a Trenton, New Jersey, postmark. Swabbing of 621 mailboxes for Anthrax allowed investigators to identify a heavily contaminated blue street-side box located across the street from the main entrance to Princeton University. By 2007, investigators conclusively determined that a single spore-batch created and maintained by Dr. Bruce E. Ivins at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, located in Frederick, Maryland, was the parent material for the letter spores. An intensive investigation of individuals with access to that material ensued. Evidence developed from that investigation established that Dr. Ivins, alone, mailed the anthrax letters. The four envelopes used in the attacks were all 6¾-inch “Federal Eagle” pre-franked 34¢ envelopes. The “Federal Eagle” name was derived from the postage frank in the upper right-hand corner of the envelope, which consisted of an image of an eagle perched on a bar bearing the letters “USA.” Underneath those letters was the number 34, which denoted the 34¢ postage. The envelopes were manufactured exclusively for, and sold solely by, the United States Postal Service between January 8, 2001, and June 2002. The printing on these envelopes was applied by a process called flexography. This was a form of relief printing, where a plate containing a raised image area was inked and then transferred the image directly onto the envelope via impact. These printing plates were composed of a flexible polymer material and could cause printing defects due to, among other things, excess ink or abrasions on the plate which arose and departed during envelope production, and which could impart a distinctive characteristic. In January 2005, forensic examiners at the United States Secret Service Laboratory identified a number of defects in the pre-printed Eagle

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

and wording on the envelopes used in the attacks. Based on this discovery, investigators implemented their plan to compare these defects to other envelopes recovered from post offices across the country in an effort to locate a point of purchase. Investigators collected as many pre-franked Federal Eagle envelopes as possible from post offices that had received them for comparison to the evidence. In total, 290,245 known Federal Eagle envelopes were collected and examined. Close scrutiny of the evidentiary envelopes revealed that the envelopes mailed to Tom Brokaw and Senator Leahy had the same print defects. The envelopes mailed to the NY Post and Senator Daschle shared the same print defects as each other, but different from the print defects observed on the envelopes mailed to Brokaw and Senator Leahy. As it turned out, during manufacturing/printing, two plates on a single printing machine drum were used to print the envelopes, in an alternating pattern. This is evidence that the envelopes mailed to both Brokaw and Senator Leahy were stamped by the same plate, while the envelopes mailed to the NY Post and Senator Daschle were stamped by the same plate, but different from the plate that stamped the envelopes to Brokaw and Senator Leahy. The logical inference was that these four envelopes were produced in succession and grouped this way because they were pulled from the box of envelopes in the order in which they were printed on the machine.

In the course of their examination of the known Eagle envelopes, experts determined that a particular box of envelopes from the Elkton, Maryland, office had alternating print defects strikingly similar to those observed in the evidence. Shipment records disclosed that the post offices in Elkton and Frederick, Maryland, received Eagle envelopes on the same day. Unfortunately, the envelopes from the Frederick post office had been destroyed.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Over the course of the next several months, examiners focused on how the printing defects changed over the course of the production run and how long it took for changes to start to occur. The expert examiners concluded that the same printing defects could occur on envelopes in as few as four boxes (two thousand envelopes). The occurrence of printing defects and the number of envelopes exhibiting the defect with the same morphological characteristics were quite low. It was concluded that the envelopes most similar to those used in the attacks were also distributed to the Elkton and Frederick, Maryland, post offices. The latter was located just a few blocks from the home of Dr. Ivins, and where Dr. Ivins maintained a post office box at the time of the mailings.

The anthrax letters were mailed from a collection box near Princeton University outside of an office building that housed a particular sorority with which Dr. Ivins was admittedly obsessed dating back forty years to his college days. This mailbox was located approximately three hours from his house in Frederick, Maryland. Aware of the FBI investigation and the prospect of being indicted, Dr. Ivins took an overdose of over-the-counter medications and died shortly thereafter.

* Source: Amerithrax Investigative Summary: Released Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The United

States Department of Justice, 2010.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Other Forensic Science Services Even though this textbook is devoted to describing the services normally provided by a crime laboratory, the field of forensic science is by no means limited to the areas covered in this book. A number of specialized forensic science services outside the crime laboratory are routinely available to law enforcement personnel. These services are important aids to a criminal investigation and require the involvement of individuals who have highly specialized skills.

Three specialized forensic services—forensic pathology, forensic anthropology, and forensic entomology—are frequently employed at a murder scene and will be discussed at greater length when we examine crime-scene procedures in Chapter 6 . Other services, such as those discussed next, are used in a wide variety of criminal investigations.

Forensic Psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry is a specialized area that examines the relationship between human behavior and legal proceedings. Forensic psychiatrists are retained for both civil and criminal litigations. In civil cases, they typically perform tasks such as determining whether an individual is competent to

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

make decisions about preparing a will, settling property, or refusing medical treatment. In criminal cases, forensic psychologists evaluate behavioral disorders and determine whether defendants are competent to stand trial. Forensic psychiatrists also examine behavior patterns of criminals as an aid in developing a suspect’s behavioral profile.

Forensic Odontology

Practitioners of forensic odontology help identify victims based on dental evidence when the body is in an unrecognizable state. Teeth are composed of enamel, the hardest substance in the body. Because of enamel’s resilience, the teeth outlast tissues and organs during decomposition. The characteristics of teeth, their alignment, and the overall structure of the mouth provide individual evidence for identifying a specific person. Based on dental records such as X-rays and dental casts, even a photograph of the person’s smile, a set of dental remains can be matched to a suspected victim.

Forensic Engineering

Forensic engineers are concerned with failure analysis, accident reconstruction, and causes and origins of fires and explosions. Forensic engineers answer questions such as these: How did an accident or structural failure occur? Were the parties involved responsible? If so, how were they responsible? Accident scenes are examined, photographs are reviewed, and any mechanical objects involved are inspected.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Forensic Computer And Digital Analysis

Forensic computer science is a new and fast-growing field that involves identifying, collecting, preserving, and examining information derived from computers and other digital devices, such as cell phones. Law enforcement aspects of this work normally involve recovering deleted or overwritten data from a computer’s hard drive and tracking hacking activities within a compromised system. The fields of forensic computer analysis and recovery of data from mobile devices will be addressed in detail in Chapters 18 and 19 .

Quick Review The development of crime laboratories in the United States has been characterized by rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional planning and coordination. Four major reasons for the increase in the number of crime laboratories in the United States since the 1960s are as follows: (1) The requirement to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to counsel has all but eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool. (2) There has been a staggering increase in crime rates in the United States. (3) All illicit-drug seizures must be sent to a forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before the case can be adjudicated in court. (4) DNA profiling was developed and is now often required. The technical support provided by crime laboratories can be assigned to five basic services: the physical science unit, the biology unit, the firearms unit, the document examination unit, and the photography unit. Some crime laboratories offer optional services such as toxicology, fingerprint analysis, polygraph administration, voiceprint analysis, and crime-scene investigation.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Special forensic science services available to the law enforcement community include forensic pathology, forensic anthropology, forensic entomology, forensic psychiatry, forensic odontology, forensic engineering, and forensic computer and digital analysis.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Functions of the Forensic Scientist Although a forensic scientist relies primarily on scientific knowledge and skill, only half of the job is performed in the laboratory. The other half takes place in the courtroom, where the ultimate significance of the evidence is determined. The forensic scientist must not only analyze physical evidence but also persuade a jury to accept the conclusions derived from that analysis.

Analysis OF Physical Evidence

First and foremost, the forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences to analyze the many types of physical evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation. Of the three major avenues available to police investigators for assistance in solving a crime—confessions, eyewitness accounts by victims or witnesses, and the evaluation of physical evidence retrieved from the crime scene—only physical evidence is free of inherent error or bias.

The Importance of Physical Evidence

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Criminal cases are replete with examples of individuals who were incorrectly charged with and convicted of committing a crime because of faulty memories or lapses in judgment. For example, investigators may be led astray during their preliminary evaluation of the events and circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime. These errors may be compounded by misleading eyewitness statements and inappropriate confessions. These same concerns don’t apply to physical evidence.

What about physical evidence that allows investigators to sort out facts as they are and not what one wishes they were? The hallmark of physical evidence is that it must undergo scientific inquiry. Science derives its integrity from adherence to strict guidelines that ensure the careful and systematic collection, organization, and analysis of information—a process known as the scientific method . The underlying principles of the scientific method provide a safety net to ensure that the outcome of an investigation is not tainted by human emotion or compromised by distorting, belittling, or ignoring contrary evidence.

The scientific method seeks answers by adhering to the systematic collection, organization, and analysis of information. The particular question to be examined is called the hypothesis. Scientific methodology is based on testing the hypothesis to see if it can be disproven or falsified. A scientific hypothesis is tentative and testable by experimentation and must be capable of being supported or not supported by experimental evidence. Hypotheses of durable explanatory power which have been tested over a wide variety of conditions are incorporated into theories. Theories represent the best explanations for various natural and physical phenomena and are capable of being tested and re-tested by multiple independent research.

The scientific method serves as a model for the criminal investigator. It begins by formulating a question worthy of investigation, such as who

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

committed a particular crime. The investigator next formulates a hypothesis, a reasonable explanation proposed to answer the question. What follows is the basic foundation of scientific inquiry—the testing of the hypothesis through experimentation. The testing process must be thorough and recognized by other scientists and investigators as valid. Scientists and investigators must accept the findings even when they wish they were different. Finally, when the hypothesis is validated by experimentation, it becomes suitable as scientific evidence, appropriate for use in a criminal investigation and ultimately available for admission in a court of law.

Determining Admissibility of Evidence In rejecting the scientific validity of the lie detector (polygraph), the District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1923 set forth what has since become a standard guideline for determining the judicial admissibility of scientific examinations. In Frye v. United States, the court stated the following:

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well- recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

To meet the Frye standard, the court must decide whether the questioned procedure, technique, or principle is “generally accepted” by a meaningful segment of the relevant scientific community. In practice, this approach required the proponent of a scientific test to present to the court a collection of experts who could testify that the scientific issue before the court is generally accepted by the relevant members of the scientific community. Furthermore, in determining whether a novel technique meets

1

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

criteria associated with “general acceptance,” courts have frequently taken note of books and papers written on the subject, as well as prior judicial decisions relating to the reliability and general acceptance of the technique. In recent years, this approach has engendered a great deal of debate as to whether it is sufficiently flexible to deal with new and novel scientific issues that may not have gained widespread support within the scientific community.

Other Standards of Admissibility As an alternative to the Frye standard, some courts came to believe that the Federal Rules of Evidence espoused a more flexible standard that did not rely on general acceptance as an absolute prerequisite for admitting scientific evidence. Part of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of all evidence, including expert testimony, in federal courts, and many states have adopted codes similar to those of the Federal Rules. Specifically, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the admissibility of expert testimony:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

In a landmark ruling in the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that “general acceptance,” or the Frye standard, is not an absolute prerequisite to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. According to the Court, the Rules of Evidence—especially Rule 702—assign

2

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the case. Although this ruling applies only to federal courts, many state courts are expected to use this decision as a guideline in setting standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Judging Scientific Evidence What the Court advocates in Daubert is that trial judges assume the ultimate responsibility for acting as a “gatekeeper” in judging the admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence presented in their courts (see Figure 1–12 ). The Court offered some guidelines as to how a judge can gauge the veracity of scientific evidence, emphasizing that the inquiry should be flexible. Suggested areas of inquiry include the following:

Figure 1-12

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Sketch of a U.S. Supreme Court hearing. Art Lien

1. Whether the scientific technique or theory can be (and has been) tested

2. Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication

3. The technique’s potential rate of error 4. Existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s

operation 5. Whether the scientific theory or method has attracted widespread

acceptance within the relevant scientific community

Some legal practitioners have expressed concern that abandoning Frye’s general-acceptance test will result in the introduction of absurd and irrational pseudoscientific claims in the courtroom. The Supreme Court rejected these concerns:

In this regard, the respondent seems to us to be overly pessimistic about the capabilities of the jury and of the adversary system generally. Vigorous cross- examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

In a 1999 decision, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Court unanimously ruled that the “gatekeeping” role of the trial judge applied not only to scientific testimony, but also to all expert testimony:

We conclude that Daubert’s general holding—setting forth the trial judge’s general “gatekeeping” obligation—applies not only to testimony based on “scientific” knowledge, but also to testimony based on “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge .… . We also conclude that a trial court may consider one or more of

3

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

the more specific factors that Daubert mentioned when doing so will help determine that testimony’s reliability. But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is “flexible,” and Daubert’s list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts in every case.

A leading case that exemplifies the type of flexibility and wide discretion that the Daubert ruling apparently gives trial judges in matters of scientific inquiry is Coppolino v. State. Here, a medical examiner testified to his finding that the victim had died of an overdose of a drug known as succinylcholine chloride. This drug had never before been detected in the human body. The medical examiner’s findings were dependent on a toxicological report that identified an abnormally high concentration of succinic acid, a breakdown product of the drug, in the victim’s body. The defense argued that this test for the presence of succinylcholine chloride was new, and the absence of corroborative experimental data by other scientists meant that it had not yet gained general acceptance in the toxicology profession. The court, in rejecting this argument, recognized the necessity for devising new scientific tests to solve the special problems that are continually arising in the forensic laboratory. It emphasized, however, that although these tests may be new and unique, they are admissible only if they are based on scientifically valid principles and techniques: “The tests by which the medical examiner sought to determine whether death was caused by succinylcholine chloride were novel and devised specifically for this case. This does not render the evidence inadmissible. Society need not tolerate homicide until there develops a body of medical literature about some particular lethal agent.”

Providing Expert Testimony

4

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Because the results of their work may be a factor in determining a person’s ultimate guilt or innocence, forensic scientists may be required to testify about their methods and conclusions at a trial or hearing.

Trial courts have broad discretion in accepting an individual as an expert witness on any particular subject. Generally, if a witness can establish to the satisfaction of a trial judge that he or she possesses a particular skill or has knowledge in a trade or profession that will aid the court in determining the truth of the matter at issue, that individual will be accepted as an expert witness. Depending on the subject area in question, the court will usually consider knowledge acquired through experience, training, education, or a combination of these as sufficient grounds for qualification as an expert witness.

In court, an expert witness may be asked questions intended to demonstrate his or her ability and competence pertaining to the matter at hand. Competency may be established by having the witness cite educational degrees, participation in special courses, membership in professional societies, and any professional articles or books published. Also important is the number of years of occupational experience the witness has had in areas related to the matter before the court.

Most chemists, biologists, geologists, and physicists prepare themselves for careers in forensic science by combining training under an experienced examiner with independent study. Of course, formal education in the physical sciences provides a firm foundation for learning and understanding the principles and techniques of forensic science. Nevertheless, for the most part, courts must rely on training and years of experience as a measurement of the knowledge and ability of the expert.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

C A S E F I L E S

DR. Coppolino’s Deadly House Calls

A frantic late-night telephone call brought a local physician to the Florida home of Drs. Carl and Carmela Coppolino. The physician arrived to find Carmela beyond help. Carmela Coppolino’s body, unexamined by anyone, was then buried in her family’s plot in her home state of New Jersey.

A little more than a month later, Carl married a moneyed socialite, Mary Gibson. News of Carl’s marriage infuriated Marjorie Farber, a former New Jersey neighbor of Dr. Coppolino who had been having an affair with the good doctor. Soon Marjorie had an interesting story to recount to investigators: Her husband’s death two years before, although ruled to be from natural causes, had actually been murder! Carl, an anesthesiologist, had given Marjorie a syringe containing some medication and told her to inject her husband, William, while he was sleeping. Ultimately, Marjorie claimed, she was unable to inject the full dose and called Carl, who finished the job by suffocating William with a pillow.

Marjorie Farber’s astonishing story was supported in part by Carl’s having recently increased his wife’s life insurance. Carmela’s $65,000 policy, along with his new wife’s fortune, would keep Dr. Coppolino in high society for the rest of his life. Based on this information, authorities in New Jersey and Florida obtained exhumation orders for both William Farber and Carmela Coppolino. After both bodies were examined, Dr. Coppolino was charged with the murders of William and Carmela.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Officials decided to try Dr. Coppolino first in New Jersey for the murder of William Farber. The Farber autopsy did not reveal any evidence of poisoning but seemed to show strong evidence of strangulation. The absence of toxicological findings left the jury to deliberate the conflicting medical expert testimony versus the sensational story told by a scorned and embittered woman. In the end, Dr. Coppolino was acquitted.

The Florida trial presented another chance to bring Carl Coppolino to justice. Recalling Dr. Coppolino’s career as an anesthesiologist, the prosecution theorized that to commit these murders Coppolino had exploited his access to the many potent drugs used during surgery, specifically an injectable paralytic agent, succinylcholine chloride.

Carmela’s body was exhumed, and it was found that Carmela had been injected in her left buttock shortly before her death. Ultimately, a completely novel procedure for detecting succinylcholine chloride was devised. With this procedure, elevated levels of succinic acid were found in Carmela’s brain, which proved that she had received a large dose of the paralytic drug shortly before her death. This evidence, along with evidence of the same drug residues in the injection site on her buttock, was presented in the Florida murder trial of Carl Coppolino, who was convicted of second-degree murder.

Before the judge rules on the witness’s qualifications, the opposing attorney may cross-examine the witness and point out weaknesses in training and knowledge. Most courts are reluctant to disqualify an individual as an expert even when presented with someone whose background is only remotely associated with the issue at hand. The question of what credentials are suitable for qualification as an expert is ambiguous and highly subjective and one that the courts wisely try to avoid.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

The weight that a judge or jury assigns to “expert” testimony in subsequent deliberations is, however, quite another matter. Undoubtedly, education and experience have considerable bearing on what value should be assigned to the expert’s opinions. Just as important may be his or her demeanor and ability to explain scientific data and conclusions clearly, concisely, and logically to a judge and jury composed of nonscientists. The problem of sorting out the strengths and weaknesses of expert testimony falls to prosecution and defense counsel.

The ordinary or lay witness must testify on events or observations that arise from personal knowledge. This testimony must be factual and, with few exceptions, cannot contain the personal opinions of the witness. On the other hand, the expert witness is called on to evaluate evidence when the court lacks the expertise to do so. This expert then expresses an opinion as to the significance of the findings. The views expressed are accepted only as representing the expert’s opinion and may later be accepted or ignored in jury deliberations (see Figure 1–13 ).

Figure 1-13

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

An expert witness testifying in court. Taylor Jones/Palm Beach Post/Zuma Press/Newscom

Impartiality and Ethics

The expert cannot render any view with absolute certainty. At best, he or she may only be able to offer an opinion based on a reasonable scientific certainty derived from training and experience. Obviously, the expert is expected to defend vigorously the techniques and conclusions of the analysis, but at the same time he or she must not be reluctant to discuss impartially any findings that could minimize the significance of the analysis. The forensic scientist should not be an advocate of one party’s cause but an advocate of truth only. An adversary system of justice must give the prosecutor and defense ample opportunity to offer expert opinions and to argue the merits of such testimony. Ultimately, the duty of the judge

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

or jury is to weigh the pros and cons of all the information presented when deciding guilt or innocence.

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a series of guidelines defining the ethical responsibilities of forensic examiners both within the laboratory and courtroom (see Appendix I ). These foundational guidelines can be expected to be adopted as universally accepted criteria by practicing forensic scientists. They will serve as a measuring rod to judge the integrity and competence of forensic science as it is practiced in the criminal justice system.

The necessity for the forensic scientist to appear in court has been imposed on the criminal justice system by a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The Melendez-Diaz decision addressed the practice of using evidence affidavits or laboratory certificates in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic analysts. In its reasoning, the Court relied on a previous ruling, Crawford v. Washington, where it explored the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In the Crawford case, a recorded statement by a spouse was used against her husband in his prosecution. Crawford argued that this was a violation of his right to confront witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment, and the Court agreed. Using the same logic in Melendez-Diaz, the Court reasoned that introducing forensic science evidence via an affidavit or a certificate denied a defendant the opportunity to cross- examine the analyst. In 2011, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Melendez- Diaz decision in the case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by rejecting a substitute expert witness in lieu of the original analyst:

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe

5

6

7

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.

WebExtra 1.2 Watch a Forensic Expert Witness Testify—I

WebExtra 1.3 Watch a Forensic Expert Witness Testify—II

Furnishing Training in the Proper Recognition, Collection, and Preservation of Physical Evidence

The competence of a laboratory staff and the sophistication of its analytical equipment have little or no value if relevant evidence cannot be properly recognized, collected, and preserved at the site of a crime. For this

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

reason, the forensic staff must have responsibilities that will influence the conduct of the crime-scene investigation.

The most direct and effective response to this problem has been to dispatch specially trained evidence-collection technicians to the crime scene. A growing number of crime laboratories and the police agencies they service keep trained “evidence technicians” on twenty-four-hour call to help criminal investigators retrieve evidence. These technicians are trained by the laboratory staff to recognize and gather pertinent physical evidence at the crime scene. They are assigned to the laboratory full-time for continued exposure to forensic techniques and procedures. They have at their disposal all the proper tools and supplies for proper collection and packaging of evidence for future scientific examination.

Unfortunately, many police forces still have not adopted this approach. Often a patrol officer or detective collects the evidence. The individual’s effectiveness in this role depends on the extent of his or her training and working relationship with the laboratory. For maximum use of the skills of the crime laboratory, training of the crime-scene investigator must go beyond superficial classroom lectures to involve extensive personal contact with the forensic scientist. Each must become aware of the other’s problems, techniques, and limitations.

The training of police officers in evidence collection and their familiarization with the capabilities of a crime laboratory should not be restricted to a select group of personnel on the force. Every officer engaged in fieldwork, whether it be traffic, patrol, investigation, or juvenile control, often must process evidence for laboratory examination. Obviously, it would be difficult and time consuming to give everyone the in-depth training and attention that a qualified criminal investigator requires. However, familiarity with crime laboratory services and capabilities can be gained through periodic lectures, laboratory tours, and dissemination of

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

manuals prepared by the laboratory staff that outline the proper methods for collecting and submitting physical evidence to the laboratory (see Figure 1-14 ).

Figure 1-14

Representative evidence-collection guides prepared by various governmental agencies. Richard Saferstein, Ph.D.

A brief outline describing the proper collection and packaging of common types of physical evidence is found in Appendix II . The procedures and information summarized in this appendix are discussed in greater detail in forthcoming chapters.

Quick Review

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

A forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences to analyzing evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation. The cases Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. set guidelines for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence into the courtroom. An expert witness evaluates evidence based on specialized training and experience. Forensic scientists participate in training law enforcement personnel in the proper recognition, collection, and preservation of physical evidence.

Exploring Forensic Science on the Internet

There are no limits to the amount or type of information that can be found on the Internet. The fields of law enforcement and forensic science have not been left behind by advancing computer technology. Extensive information about forensic science is available on the Internet. The types of information available on websites range from simple explanations of the various fields of forensics to intricate details of crime-scene reconstruction. People can also find information on which colleges offer degree programs in forensics and webpages posted by law enforcement agencies that detail their activities as well as employment opportunities.

General Forensics Sites

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Reddy’s Forensic Home Page (www.forensicpage.com) is a valuable starting point. This site is a collection of forensic webpages in categories such as new links in forensics; general forensic information sources; associations, colleges, and societies; literature and journals; forensic laboratories; general webpages; forensic-related mailing lists and newsgroups; universities; conferences; and various forensic fields of expertise.

Another website offering a multitude of information related to forensic science is Zeno’s Forensic Site (www.forensic.to/forensic.html). Here users can find links related to forensic education and expert consultation, as well as a wealth of information concerning specific fields of forensic science.

A comprehensive and useful website for those interested in law enforcement is Officer.com (www.officer.com). This comprehensive collection of criminal justice resources is organized into easy-to-read subdirectories that relate to topics such as law enforcement agencies, police association and organization sites, criminal justice organizations, law research pages, and police mailing-list directories.

Websites on Specific Topics

An Introduction to Forensic Firearm Identification This website contains an extensive collection of information relating to the identification of firearms. An individual can explore in detail how to examine bullets, cartridge cases, and clothing for gunshot residues and suspect shooters’ hands for primer residues. Information on the latest

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

technology involving the automated firearms search system National Integrated Ballistic Identification Network (NIBIN) can also be found on this site.

WebExtra 1.4 An Introduction to Forensic Firearm Identification

Crime Scene Investigator Network For those who are interested in learning the process of crime-scene investigation, this site provides detailed guidelines and information regarding crime-scene response and the collection and preservation of evidence. For example, information concerning the packaging and analysis of bloodstains, seminal fluids, hairs, fibers, paint, glass, firearms, documents, and fingerprints can be found through this website. It explains the importance of inspecting the crime scene and the impact forensic evidence has on the investigation.

WebExtra 1.5 Crime Scene Investigator Network

Crimes and Clues

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Users interested in learning about the forensic aspects of fingerprinting will find this to be a useful and informative website. The site covers the history of fingerprints, as well as subjects pertaining to the development of latent fingerprints. The user will also find links to other websites covering a variety of subjects pertaining to crime-scene investigation, documentation of the crime scene, and expert testimony.

WebExtra 1.6 Crimes and Clues

Questioned-Document Examination This basic, informative webpage answers frequently asked questions concerning document examination, explains the application of typical document examinations, and details the basic facts and theory of handwriting and signatures. There are also links to noted document examination cases that present the user with real-life applications of forensic document examination.

WebExtra 1.7 Questioned-Document Examination

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Chapter Review

1.1 Distinguish between forensic science and criminalistics

Forensic science is the application of science to criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system.

1.2 Outline the main historical developments of forensic science

The first system of personal identification was called “anthropometry.” It distinguished one individual from another based on a series of bodily measurements. Forensic science owes its origins to individuals such as Bertillon, Galton, Lattes, Goddard, Osborn, and Locard, who developed the principles and techniques needed to identify and compare physical evidence. Locard’s exchange principle states that, when two objects come into contact with each other, a cross-transfer of materials occurs that can connect a criminal suspect to his or her victim.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

1.3 Describe the organization and services of a typical comprehensive crime laboratory in the criminal justice system

The development of crime laboratories in the United States has been characterized by rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional planning and coordination. Four major reasons for the increase in the number of crime laboratories in the United States since the 1960s are as follows: (1) The requirement to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to counsel has all but eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool. (2) There has been a staggering increase in crime rates in the United States. (3) All illicit-drug seizures must be sent to a forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before the case can be adjudicated in court. (4) DNA profiling was developed and is now often required. The technical support provided by crime laboratories can be assigned to five basic services: the physical science unit, the biology unit, the firearms unit, the document examination unit, and the photography unit. Some crime laboratories offer optional services such as toxicology, fingerprint analysis, polygraph administration, voiceprint analysis, and crime-scene investigation.

1.4 Understand what specialized forensic services, aside from the crime

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

laboratory, are generally available to law enforcement personnel

Special forensic science services available to the law enforcement community include forensic pathology, forensic anthropology, forensic entomology, forensic psychiatry, forensic odontology, forensic engineering, and forensic computer and digital analysis. A forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences to analyzing evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation.

1.5 Explain how physical evidence is analyzed and presented in the courtroom by the forensic scientist, and how admissibility of evidence is determined in the courtroom

The cases Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. set guidelines for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence into the courtroom. An expert witness evaluates evidence based on specialized training and experience. Forensic scientists participate in training law enforcement personnel in the proper recognition, collection, and preservation of physical evidence.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Chapter 1 Application and Critical Thinking Exercises

Application

1. Police investigating an apparent suicide collect the following items at the scene: a note purportedly written by the victim, a revolver bearing very faint fingerprints, and traces of skin and blood under the victim’s fingernails. Match the items of evidence with the units of the crime laboratory that will examine each piece of evidence. Document Exam Unit                     

Firearms Unit                     

Latent Print Unit                     

Biology Unit                     

2. A Timeline of Forensic Science The following images depict different types of evidence or techniques for analyzing evidence. Place the images in order pertaining to the time in history (least recent to most recent) at which each type of evidence or technique was first introduced. Do this using the letters assigned to the images.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(A)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(B)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(C)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(D)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(E)

(F)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(G)

(A), (B) Dorling Kindersley Ltd.; (B) Dorling Kindersley Ltd.; (C) Science History Images/Alamy Stock Photo; (D) James Steidl/Shutterstock; (E) Chatsikan Tawanthaisong/Shutterstock; (F) Marmaduke St. John/Alamy Stock Photo; (G) Kevin L Chesson/Shutterstock

3. Evidence Processing at the Crime Laboratory You are the evidence technician at the front desk of the state crime lab. You receive the following items of evidence to check in on a very busy day. Match each piece of evidence to the unit to which it must be sent for analysis. Your crime lab has a criminalistics (physical science) unit, a drug unit, a biology unit, a firearms unit, a document examination unit, a toxicology unit, a latent fingerprinting unit, an anthropology unit, and a forensic computer and digital analysis unit.

A.                      B.                      C.                      D.                      E.                      F.                      G.                      H.                      I.                     

J.                      K.                      L.                     

M.                     

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(A)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(B)

(C)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(D)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(E)

(F)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(G)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(H)

(I)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(J)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(K)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(L)

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

(M)

(A) Keith Brofsky/Getty Images; (B) Michael P. Gadomski/Science Source; (C) Saivann/Shutterstock; (D) Mellow Rapp/Shutterstock; (E) George Whitely/Getty Images; (F) Jack Hollingsworth/Photodisc/Getty Images; (G) Horacio Villalobos/Corbis Historical/Getty Images; (H) Andy Crawford/Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.; (I) Klaus Westermann/Agencja Fotograficzna Caro/Alamy Stock Photo; (J) Gary Ombler/Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.; (K) Danilo Calilung/Corbis; (L) Peter Anderson/Dorling Kindersley Ltd.; (M) Matthew Ward/Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.

Critical Thinking

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

1. Most crime labs in the United States are funded and operated by the government and provide services free to police and prosecutors. Great Britain, however, relies on private laboratories that charge fees for their services and keep any profits they make. Suggest potential strengths and weaknesses of each system.

2. List at least three advantages of having an evidence-collection unit process a crime scene instead of a patrol officer or detective.

3. What legal issue was raised on appeal by the defense in Carl Coppolino’s Florida murder trial? What court ruling is most relevant to the decision to reject the appeal? Explain your answer.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Key Terms Locard’s exchange principle scientific method expert witness

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Review Questions 1. The application of science to law describes           . 2. The Spaniard            published the first writings about the detection

of poisons and the effects of poisons on animals, and he is considered the “father of forensic toxicology.”

3. A system of personal identification using a series of bodily measurements was first devised by           , and he called it           .

4. The fictional exploits of            excited the imagination of an emerging generation of forensic scientists and criminal investigators.

5. One of the first functional crime laboratories was formed in Lyons, France, in 1910 under the direction of           , who developed           , a theory stating that there is mutual transfer of material when two objects make contact with each other.

�. The application of science to criminal investigation was advocated by the Austrian magistrate           .

7. True or False: The important advancement in the fields of blood typing and document examination were made in the early part of the twentieth century.           

�. The Italian scientist            devised the first workable procedure for typing dried bloodstains.

9. Early efforts at applying scientific principles to document examination are associated with           .

10. The first DNA profiling test was developed by            in 1984, and it was first used in 1986 to identify the murderer of two young English

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

girls. 11. True or False: Computerized databases exist for fingerprints, bullets,

cartridge cases, and DNA.            12. The first forensic laboratory in the United States was created in 1923

by the            Police Department. 13. Although no national system of forensic laboratories exists in the

United States, the state of            is an excellent example of a geographical area in the United States that has created a system of integrated regional and satellite laboratories.

14. A decentralized system of crime laboratories currently exists in the United States under the auspices of various governmental agencies at the           ,           ,           , and            levels of government.

15. In contrast to the United States, Britain has a crime laboratory system characterized by a national system of            laboratories.

1�. Four important federal agencies offering forensic services are           ,           ,           , and           .

17. The application of chemistry, physics, and geology to the identification and comparison of crime-scene evidence is the function of the            unit of a crime laboratory.

1�. The examination of blood, hairs, fibers, and botanical materials is conducted in the            unit of a crime laboratory.

19. The examination of bullets, cartridge cases, shotgun shells, and ammunition of all types is the responsibility of the            unit.

20. The study of handwriting and typewriting on questioned documents is carried out by the            unit to ascertain authenticity and/or source.

21. The examination of body fluids and organs for drugs and poisons is a function of the            unit.

22. The            unit dispatches trained personnel to the scene of a crime to retrieve evidence for laboratory examination.

23. True or False: Special forensic science services available to the law enforcement community include forensic pathology, forensic

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

anthropology, and forensic astronomy.            24. The “general acceptance” principle, which serves as a criterion for

the judicial admissibility of scientific evidence, was set forth in the case of           .

25. In the case of           , the Supreme Court ruled that, in assessing the admissibility of new and unique scientific tests, the trial judge did not have to rely solely on the concept of “general acceptance.”

2�. True or False: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael restricted the “gatekeeping” role of a trial judge to scientific testimony only.           

27. A Florida case that exemplifies the flexibility and wide discretion that the trial judge has in matters of scientific inquiry is           .

2�. A(n)            is a person who can demonstrate a particular skill or has knowledge in a trade or profession that will help the court determine the truth of the matter at issue.

29. True or False: The expert witness’s courtroom demeanor may play an important role in deciding what weight the court will assign to his or her testimony.           

30. True or False: The testimony of an expert witness incorporates his or her personal opinion relating to a matter he or she has either studied or examined.           

31. True or False: In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed issues relating to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in the case of Crawford v. Washington.           

32. The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision            addressed the practice of using affidavits in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic examiners.

33. The ability of the investigator to recognize and collect crime-scene evidence properly depends on the amount of            received from the crime laboratory.

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

1320301 - Pearson Education Limited ©

Endnotes 1. 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 2. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 3. 526 U.S. 137 (1999). 4. 223 So. 2d 68 (Fla. App. 1968), app. dismissed, 234 So. 2d (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 (1970). 5. 557 U.S. 305 (2009). 6. 541 U.S. 36 (2004) 7. 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011).