Evidence

What is evidence?
• In the law evidence can be broken down into two
categories…
– Direct evidence
– Physical evidence
Direct evidence
• Direct evidence is
made in the form of a
statement made
under oath, such as a
witness pointing out a
person that they
believe committed a
crime
• We also call this
testimonial evidence
 Physical evidence
• Physical evidence is
any object or material
that is relevant to a
crime including small
and large tangible
objects, and/or smells
and odors.
• This evidence is
collected by the CSI
then processed by a
lab technician
 Why is it important?
• Physical evidence can…
– Prove a crime has been committed
– Corroborate testimony
– Link a suspect with a victim or crime scene
– Establish the identity of associated persons
– Allow reconstruction of events at a crime
• Evidence can also be broken down more by how
much “weight” it carries in court proceedings.
 Indirect evidence
• Indirect evidence is evidence that does not
prove a fact; it only establishes a
hypothesis based on facts…most
evidence falls into this category
 Circumstantial evidence
• Circumstantial evidence implies a fact or
event…such as possession of narcotics

• The greater the volume/amount of

circumstantial evidence there is the more
likely it is that it is factual (probability and
statistics.
 What is good evidence?

• The rules of evidence define what evidence is

admissible and what evidence is not
• Material evidence is all evidence that is
relevant to a particular crime

• Evidence that proves something in a case

is what we call probative.

• You want to convict someone then you

better have material evidence that is
probative
 Inadmissible evidence
• Hearsay is a form of evidence that is not
permissible in court because the person was not
under oath when the statement was made
 Credibility
• The expert witness is the person that is
the expert in the field of science…they are
the presenter of information in court

• Credibility is established through

credentials, background, and experience
in the topic.
What makes it admissible?
• There are two court
rulings that have
largely governed the
admissibility of
evidence in court
– Frye vs. the United
States
– Daubert vs. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceutical,
Inc.
 The Frye Standard
• The Frye standard states that in order to
be probative
– Testimony must be given by an expert witness
– The techniques used must have gained
general acceptance within its own field
 The Daubert Ruling
• The Daubert ruling stated that the Frye
standard was not an absolute prerequisite
for admissibility in court, and that it was
the judge that was responsible for
determining validity

• The Frye standard was to be used only as

a guideline
 Why did it change?
• The Daubert ruling changed the previous Frye
standard to help keep up with technological
advances in the field.
• The guideline is:
– The technique or theory must be testable
– The theory must be subject to peer review
– Potential error, and rate of error must be stated
– The techniques must follow a standard
– Consideration of the widespread acceptance, or lack
of, within the scientific community must be taken