Question

Explain how the use of forensic investigative techniques enables both prosecutors and defense attorneys to recognize and develop evidence in the prosecution of criminal cases and in the defense of the accused.
· Discuss how forensic science is or is not better than these traditional methods and why.
· Discuss whether courts and juries now place more trust in forensic science than other forms of information.
· Provide your arguments that juries should or should not place more emphasis and trust in forensic science and your reasons for the argument.
In providing answers to these issues, indicate specific types of forensic evidence that would apply and use trustworthy supportive examples wherever possible such as case law or case examples.

Answer 1

Lawyers in criminal trial courts both defense and prosecutors do indulge into putting immense significance on the use of forensics and latest available technologies in order to establish or contradict the substantial facts and proofs presented in the court. For instance in drug crimes forensics can be used to establish the chemical composition of a drug in order to establish an opinion or conclusion whether or not an individual was actually in possession of the illegal drugs.

Prosecutors can use the results of the forensics reports as proof to convict a person for instance in the case of death by poisoning forensics and latest available technologies can be exercised to establish the use of drug killing the person and also list down the possible suspects who could have the access to such substances.

As per National Institute of Justice forensic sciences are regarded as the application of knowledge and discipline with regard to issues pertaining to law where in fact it can be used to match the DNA of an individual and accordingly recognize and acknowledge the circumstantial and considerable evidences pertaining to the case furthermore it also enables the investigative authorities to correctly and effectively examine and evaluate the physical evidences at its disposal to ensure the establishment of a true and fair view in order to facilitate justice in a criminal case.

Results established through forensic tests are permissible in the court of law in order to support evidence admitted at trial. Scientific investigation of crime are generally based on the effective and efficient utilization of the latest available technologies which indeed enables to ensure the elimination of elements based on rumors, statements of witnesses, confessions, etc. which are normally related with the traditional methods of investigation. Thus the exclusion of subjective elements facilitates to ensure the enhancement of the accurateness of proofs thus thereby enhancing the prospects of conviction.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report suggested that judges indeed need to consider both the foundational and applied validity of the forensic discipline that in fact facilitated to establish the substantial evidence before acknowledging the expert testimony thus this indeed facilitated to ensure that experts need to give evidence with regard to the confinements and restrictions pertaining to the investigation and evidence.

National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) concluded that judges indeed need to persist with the decision on what in fact makes an evidence trustworthy and thus permissible. It also further emphasized that the vigorous requirements of becoming an expert witnesses along with the capability to cross-examine them in court are indeed sufficient to ensure reliable and acceptable evidence to provide justice in criminal cases.