LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE CHAPTER 2

Admissibility o Evidence which may be introduced to a court of law o Evidence must be: Relevant – must prove something (probative) Address the issue of the particular crime (material) Reliable (scientific) Hearsay o Witness testimony relates to what others have said o Witness does not have direct knowledge o "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted” …..Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)(Code of Evidence Law) o Inadmissible! (in criminal cases!) Not reliable Not taken under oath Does not allow for cross examination

The Frye Standard o Frye v United States, 1923 Frye v United States, 1923 Scenario: In 1923, James Frye was convicted of murder in the second degree. On appeal, the trial counsel for the defendant offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deception test made on the defendant, claiming that during the first trial, the testimony was not accepted. The test was described as the systolic blood pressure deception test. The decision of the Supreme Court was to let the conviction stand. o Ruling – To be accepted into court of law, evidence must be given by expert witness and have gained “general acceptance” in field

Expert Witness o Must establish credibility prior to testimony Through credentials, background, experience, skill, education

The Daubert Ruling o Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993 Scenario In 1993, two minor children and their parents sued Dow, claiming that the children’s serious birth defects had been caused because, during the mother’s pregnancies, they had used a Rx drug marketed by Dow. They decided that the evidence did not meet the standard of “general acceptance” for admission of expert testimony (from Frye) o Ruling – Frye not only rule for admissibility Trial judge assumes responsibility for admissibility – ultimately allows or does not allow the admissibility of evidence into the court and/or an expert witness to testify Revised RuleRevised Rule – Rule 702 on Expert Testimony How can a judge “gatekeep”? Suggestions on page 17Suggestions

Collection of Evidence o 4 th Amendment Unreasonable search and seizures Warrant  Authorization to conduct a search – written and signed by judge  Probable Cause – reasonable amount of suspicion Warrantless searches  Immediate threat to health and safety  Consent Supreme court cases  Mincy v Arizona  Thomson v Louisianna  Flippo v West Virginia  Michigan v Tyler (p. 56 in book) “WHEN TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT, OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT BEFORE INVESTIGATING AND RETRIEVING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE!”