𝜗𝜚 ˖Forensic Science

Notes˙⋆✮

Forensic History and Careers

Overview
Forensic science: application of scientific techniques to the judicial system, particularly through
examining and interpreting civil or criminal evidence (basically application of science to law)

Arose from a combination of sciences including chemistry, medicine, biology, and pharmacology

Began to grow into a recognizable discipline by the mid 19th century, through the work of
European scientists

Death investigation was the major contributor to its development.

Most scientists that pioneered forensics were generalists as they worked in a many forensic
disciplines

In the modern era, forensic scientists take more of a specialist approach, involving specialization
in one forensic field (trace evidence analysis, forensic toxicology, forensic pathology)

Notable Names

Victor Balthazard (1852-1950), French

-​ Medical examiner for city of Paris
-​ Helped advance forensic analysis of firearms and hair samples
-​ Created advanced photographic method to identify and compare distinct markings on
different bullets and firearms
-​ Wrote first ever comprehensive book on hair analysis
 -​ Developed probability models that verified the uniqueness of fingerprints
-​ Demonstrated the probability of two individuals sharing the same print (1 in 64 billion
aka 10^60!)

Alphonse Bertillon (1853-1914), French

-​ Developed the first systematic method to identify suspects and criminals
-​ Method was based on anthropometry (a.k.a. Bertillonage)
-​ Anthropometry: used 11 body measurements, descriptive information and visuals all
stored on card for identification
-​ Bertillonage was used throughout the world into the early 20th century before it was
replaced by the more accurate method of fingerprinting

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), English

-​ Credited with developing the first fingerprint classification system
-​ Galton’s system was originally employed by the British government to supplement
Bertillonage
-​ Published Finger Prints in 1892, which brought fingerprinting to the forefront of criminal
identification
-​ First to classify the basic print patterns of the loop, arch, and whorl

Dr. Calvin Goddard (1891-1955), American

-​ Goddard was a retired army physician who helped establish scientific examination of
firearm evidence in United States
-​ Joined the Bureau of Forensic Ballistics in 1925
-​ Worked on many famous cases including Chicago’s Valentine’s Day Massacre
 -​ Worked with the FBI to help develop modern tools used in forensic firearm analysis, such
as the comparison scope

Hans Gross (1847-1915), Austrian

-​ Examining magistrate who coined the term criminalistics to describe forensic analysis of
evidence
-​ Gross carried a holistic view of forensic science, and was a prototypical generalist
-​ Believed that experts from diverse views could contribute to evidence analysis
-​ Published Criminal Investigations in 1893, the first forensic science textbook

Edmund Locard (1877-1966), French

-​ Criminologist trained in medicine and law
-​ Main interest was microscopic trace evidence, strongly believed in importance of linking
people to places
-​ Developed Locard’s exchange principle: every person-person or or person-place contact
results in the transfer of materials between them

Mathieu Orfila (1787-1853), French + Spanish

-​ Considered the founding father of forensic toxicology
-​ Focused on studying poisons, mainly arsenic
-​ Developed techniques to identify arsenic in tissues, blood, and other fluids

Sherlock Holmes, Fictional Detective created by Arthur Conan Doyle

-​ Sherlock Holmes’s stories played a major role in shaping public view of forensic science
and inspired some of its pioneers
-​ Doyle’s tales delved into several areas of forensics including trace evidence, questioned
documents, and forensic biology

Science and the Law Today

In law, jury and judge decide the verdict

Science is based on data and empirical evidence, which is obtained using a series of steps called
the scientific method

Scientific Method

1.​ Formulate a hypothesis

2.​ Test the hypothesis using observation or experimentation
 3.​ Based on results, revise hypothesis and repeat
4.​ Continue until data are in agreement with hypothesis

-​ Science begins with data and facts not hypotheses

-​ Scientists collect facts which they study to develop useful relationships between
parameters (body weight vs blood pressure)
-​ Then, hypotheses are formulated, and testing methods are developed

This model is at the core of scientific research, but does not apply to the justice system

-​ Law uses an adversarial system in which lawyers represent one of two rival positions
arguing for a cause

Forensic science accounts for both systems by, among other things:

1.​ Helping distinguish evidence from coincidence without ambiguity

2.​ Allowing alternative results to be ranked by some principle basic to to the sciences
applied
3.​ Allowing for certainty and probabilistic consideration when appropriate
4.​ Disallowing hypotheses more extraordinary than the facts themselves
5.​ Pursuing general impressions to the level of specific details
6.​ Pursuing testing by breaking hypotheses into their smallest logistical components,
addressing one part at a time

Forensic scientist reason from a set of given results to their probable explanations (ex: From a
crime scene to a perpetrator)

The aim of this field is to develop justified explanations→ for these reasons forensic science is
often compared to clinical medicine

Forensic scientists must hold opinions with contrite fallibilism→ awareness of how much we do
not know, and the humility to acknowledge the possibility of making mistakes

Modern Practice of Forensic Science

Forensic scientists can work in public or private forensic laboratories.

Public laboratories→ funded by government (states, cities, and countries)

Private laboratories→ businesses that are designed to make a profit
Full-service forensic laboratories usually cover many disciplines such as DNA, drug analysis,
firearms, trace evidence, and fingerprinting.

Other laboratories specialize in only one type of evidence or forensic discipline, such as seized
drugs (typically small branch laboratories)

Forensic scientists can also work as engineers, anthropologists, or police officers in major crime
scene squads

Accreditation: The laboratory has agreed to operate according to a professional or industry

standard, and can show proof of this standard

Certification: The scientist has completed a written test covering their discipline and participates
in yearly proficiency tests (Forensic scientists can elect to be further specialized in a particular
area)

Types of Legal Proceedings

The US legal system is divided into civil and criminal law.

Civil = between individuals or parties

Criminal = involve government entities charging the party responsible for violating criminal
laws

Prosecution (plaintiff) party that files criminal charges

Defendant is part accused of committing the crime

Forensic scientists can testify for either case type and either party

Various levels of government can be involved in legal proceedings (local, state, federal)

Jurisdiction: region over which law enforcement or legal entities can excise authority

Typically, different legal rules apply to different jurisdictions

Evidence is presented to an entity called the trier of fact, a jury or judge that comes to a decision
based on the evidence

A grand jury is a special jury that can decide if the evidence against a defendant warrants further
actions

Determining the severity of punishment in a criminal proceeding requires consideration of the

type of criminal charge

Felonies: serious criminal cases given more severe punishment

Misdemeanors: minor offences, given less severe punishment

After lab analysis, a report is written and sent to the party who submitted evidence. The report is
then shared with prosecuting attorneys and with the defense if charges are filed.

If the forensic scientist is required to testify for a scheduled trial, they will be sent a subpoena
that states the details of the trial

In court, the scientists first must establish that they are qualified to offer expert testimony
through the voir dire process. This is where the scientists describes their qualifications
(academic, training)

The prosecution then begins direct examination, which may take a descriptive or question and
answer format. The goal is to lay the foundation for the admissibility of evidence

The defense may attack the admissibility of the evidence during direct examination, as well as
the qualifications of the scientist during voir dire. After direct examination the defense can
cross-examine the witness.

Ethics and Forensic Science

No single code of ethics that covers all forensic scientists as there are many sub-disciplines of
Forensics. American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) has a code of ethics and a
committee to deal with ethical issues, but other groups have separate codes.

Professionals are expected to provide a complete and honest report of their work, and testify as
to their scientific opinion based on that report.
It is up to forensic experts to present their opinion and defend it, but the trier of fact will decide
how the testimony fits into their final decision.

Prosecutorial bias: when forensic scientists seek out results that support their submitting agency
(i.e. they are not impartial). Forensics professionals must remain aware of their responsibility to
perform scientific analyses and report results regardless of how they affect a case.

The primary role of a forensic scientist is to supply empirical data that can be used to find the
truth, not to skew information in support of one side.

Evidence

Intro to Evidence
Evidence is court-approved information that the trier of fact can consider when making a
decision on the defendant. Examples: photographs, physical objects, DNA

Information must pass the screening function of the rules of evidence to be accepted as useable
evidence

Evidence admissibility is determined by the trial court’s application of the evidence rules

Rules of evidence are meant to filter our irrelevant or inappropriate information presented by
either side (exclusionary)

Good evidence = sufficiently supported data that can convince a judge that the proposed
information may be true

Forensic evidence: used to reconstruct the events that encompass the crime in question, and is
often scientifically generated data, involves the application of scientific theory and laboratory
techniques to establish material facts for trial

Admissibility of Evidence
Before scientific evidence is presented, it must be deemed admissible. Evidence admissibility
criteria is a critical aspect of forensic science.
Admissible evidence must be reliable and relevant to the case. For scientific evidence, the
technology/methods used to obtain it must also be reliable and scientifically acceptable

Goal of admissibility proceedings (hearings) is to:

-​ Prevent the use of evidence or data obtained through pseudoscience
-​ Filter out information that is irrelevant to the case at hand
-​ Introduce and screen new scientific test methods as viable tools in forensics

The system used to determine evidence admissibility differs by jurisdiction. Jurisdictions that
uses Frye Standard require new methods to be accepted by a large proportion of professionals in
the field to which they belong. Ex: new chemical tests must be deemed reliable among most
chemists.

Frye Standard was born from Frye v. United States in 1923 (case discussed the admissibility of
systolic blood pressure deception tests)

By rejecting the validity of the polygraph test, the DC court of appeals handed down the first
ruling that applied to modern forensic science and led to the general acceptance criteria for
scientific evidence

Governed the admissibility of scientific evidence across several jurisdictions

As science rapidly advanced and its disciplines become more compartmentalized, the ruling
became problematic and difficult to define. The ruling was also viewed as vague and restrictive
of scientific innovation.

Factual Rules of Evidence: proposed as an improved alternative to the Frye Standard

Stated that a witness qualified as an expert may testify if it assists the trier of fact to better
understand the evidence but did not specify how a witness was to be qualified as an expert and
was considered a major limitation of the FRE. These rules only applied to federal jurisdictions,
but others adapted similar evidence admissibility rules

Daubert Standard: trial judge is responsible for determining if the evidence is useful and relevant
giving jurisdictions more flexibility. Judge must also determine if the testing methods are valid
and have a reliable scientific basis. These decisions are made in Daubert hearings.
Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case was a landmark case regarding evidence
admissibility. SUpreme court concluded that it is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine
if the evidence is valid. The role assigned to the judge is referred to as gatekeeping.

Suggested gatekeeping strategies: general acceptance, peer review of technique, faslfiiabiilty of

theory

Daubert trilogy:

Joiner case: court ruled that scientific data had to pass the Daubert criteria as well as a relevance
test before it could be admitted

Kumho Tire case: extended the Daubert ruling to all relevant experts, not only scientists (an
engineer expert witness was used for the trial)

Components of Evidence
Inculpatory evidence: shows a person’s involvement in an act, and establishes guilt (can favor
either the prosecution or the defendant)

Exculaptory evidence: excludes a person as a source, tends to exonerate defendant of guilt

(favourable to defendant)

Direct evidence: information that directly establishes the fact for which the information is
offered. Ex: eyewitness testimony that the defendant committed a crime

Circumstantial evidence: allows trier of fact to accept information for which direct evidence is
unavailable by inferring from directly proven facts
Ex: blood is found at crime scene and linked to defendant via DNA test ( it is a fact that the
blood is the defendant’s so we can infer that they were there.

ALL FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

Reconstruction evidence: provides information about the events that occurred before, during, and
after the commission of a crime

Ex→ bloodstain pattern analysis can provide strong reconstruction evidence

Associative evidence: often used for reconstructing a crime scene and is used to associate or
disassociate a suspect to a crime

Ex→ hairs, fibers, bodily fluids, paint, glass, firearms, bullets, prints…etc.
Origins are considered unknown until compared to an exemplar (standard)
Forensic evidence can also be classified based on the conclusions it facilitates.

Class-characteristic evidence does not reference a particular suspect. Ex→ shell casings found at
scene of shooting are from a particular gun model

Individual characteristic: evidence does associate a suspect to crime commission. Ex→ fibers on
a victim’s clothing are consistent with fibers from defendant’s jacket, matching fingerprints…etc.

When comparing class-characteristic and individual/identifying evidence, examiners must

convey the meaning or significance of results. Consider its location, type and equality, and
condition.

For class-characteristic evidence, examienrs must try to distinguish questioned samples from
known standards.

Exclusionary potential of evidence is equally as important as incriminating evidence as it

eliminates suspects or voids a volition based on lack of adequate evidence

Biological evidence: Typically human tissues/fluids used for identification and DNA testing

Chemical evidence: seized drugs, toxicological samples, materials chemistry, explosives

Trace evidence: items left behind at crime scene (Locard’s principle)

Questioned documents: common examinations include handwriting comparisons, alterations,

obliterations, and ink/paper characterization

Fingerprint evidence: Latent print development and fingerprint identification are useful
technologies in forensics (print development is achieved chemically, physically, or
photographically)

Impression evidence: footwear and tire impressions are common; this evidence can provide
substantiation info depending on quality
Firearm and tool mark evidence: A type of impression evidence encompassing fired bullets,
cartridge casings, and shells

Crime Scene and Death Investigation

Large variety of different crime scenes, no one way to define a crime scene. Examples of ways to
describe a crime scene include:

Location→ site of original criminal activity is the primary crime scene and any subsequent
locations are secondary crime scenes. Does not assign any priority or importance to scenes

Size: macroscopic crime scene: