Response 1 550

250 word response 2 references due 5/27/2023

Briggs

Biological Fluid Stain Evidence

Evidence collection can be of various types used in the analysis and determination of criminal investigations. Biological fluid stain evidence is the category reviewed concerning the foundational concepts of Frye v. United States (1923) and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This category includes the analyses of bloodstain patterns, genetic marking, typing DNA, mitochondria DNA, and many other biological analyses. Earlier forensic biology laboratories used to conduct genetic marking testing in the protein and enzyme systems and the DNA systems. This has, however, changed, and forensic laboratories now focus their testing on short tandem repeat (STR) blood profiling or tissue specimens as electronic databases contain different types of DNA where they can cross-examine their findings (Ogle & Plotkin, 2018). These laboratories can determine the nature of DNA critical to criminal investigation—different methods of biological examination and analysis of scientific evidence.

In the two cases, the main question concerning the evidence presented to the court was the admissibility of scientific evidence. The evidence for those case laws can include genetic testing, and DNA evidence, all grouped under biological evidence (Ogle & Plotkin, 2018). In Frye v. United States, evidence has to be sufficiently reliable to be admitted to the courts. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the petitioners argued that the use of Bendictin, a drug used by pregnant women to treat nausea and vomiting, was a cause of human congenital disabilities. The Frye standard was used to determine this case, where the court held that scientific evidence had to be admissible (Frye v. United States). The standard stipulated that the implications of the integrated Frye and Daubert standards for assessing the acceptability of scientific evidence are many when scrutinized in the context of trials. The scientific evidence must be grounded in the established reliability standards accepted in the scientific community before these courts consider admitting it into evidence (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc). Reliability is essential as it ensures that the integrity and qualifications of the experts in the data collection and analysis research are beyond reproach.

Additionally, the scientific evidence has been determined to be reliable and admissible. In that case, it helps to ensure that the courts achieve their ultimate goal of determining the truth and administering justice. The reliance on this kind of evidence affirms that the judgment held by the court is based on facts. In criminal cases, scientific evidence is a powerful tool as it can identify or exonerate an offender if the evidence is inadmissible (Sachin Kumar Pawa, 2022). Frye and Daubert are essential foundations as they both require the courts to assess the reliability of the evidence provided before it can be accepted to be used in court proceedings.

The implications of the scientific evidence led to the creation of standards by which judges could assess the assertions to decide if, in any case, they contained dependable scientific knowledge and hence possibly be appropriate for evidence. It has also guided scientific theories and methodologies considered accepted by the courts when determining the acceptability of scientific evidence. The scientific techniques had to be tested and validated, subjected to peer review determinations of the technique rate or error, and acknowledged mainly by the science community (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc). Finally, it has enabled more focus on further research in technologies that have contributed to advancing how some procedures are done in biological laboratories. These cases are a foundation that has seen the scientific world in terms of evidence expand continuously over the years due to the need to provide knowledge that can be used by the courts to administer justice.