The Law of Evidence can be

defined as<br>
Those rules which directly or indirectly: <br>
1. Control what evidence may be received; <br>
2. Control the manner in which evidence is presented and
received; <br>
3. Control how evidence is to be handled and considered
once it is
received and what conclusions, if any, are to be drawn
from particular
classes of evidence;<br>
4. Specify the degree of satisfaction that the tribunal of
fact must
attain in determining whether a fact in issue is established
and the
consequences if such a level of satisfaction is not
reached.<br>
<br>
This is the approach of several writers. It has been found,
however, that
this formulation is unsatisfactory as it includes both
substantive and
procedural rules. While the definition of the 'laws of
evidence' has been
considered by the courts, they have not attempted an
exhaustive
definition. <br>
After attempts to define law of evidence lets define
forensic evidence and
the way it can be related with law of evidence
In 1985 Richard Ramirez was identified as "The Night Stalker", the man
that plagued the San Francisco and Los Angeles area for over a year.
While returning to his home town Ramirez was recognized by local citizens
and ultimately captured and beaten. They recognized him from their local
paper, due to his mug shot taking up the majority of the front page But the
reason the police were able to release his identity confidently was because
of forensic technology. Richard Ramirez attempted to steal car like he had
many times before but ended failing due to the car's owner being under the
car to Richard's bewilderment. Richard unknowingly left behind fingerprints
and the Department of Justice in California was able to match those
fingerprints found inside the car to virtually every crime scene that they
believed "The Night Stalker" was a part of. The Department of Justice of
California had an advantage that most every other department
across America didn't have. The use of a automated fingerprint indexing
system. California was one of the only departments in the country that had
this sort of technology during the mid 80's and they used it to quickly
identify Richard. This case put the automated fingerprint indexing system
on the map and proved to lower budget departments that they were
effective and worth the steep cost.
The legal system widely recognizes the role of forensic evidence in the trial
of criminal offenders. This is because when scientific techniques and
methods are used, there is not much scope for bias or injustice. That is why
DNA profiling and a host of other forensic evidence are widely accepted in
courts across the world. Interestingly, the first forensic technique ever used
involving finger and palm print identification dates back to the Chinese (650
A.D.). Forensic evidence is extensively used worldwide to both convict and
exonerate defendants. Thus, forensic science laboratories have mushroomed
up all over the globe in the past couple of decades. In fact, special acts have
been enacted in the US, Canada, and Australia to improve the rendering of
forensic services. This would ensure that crimes are detected with greater
certainty and consequently conviction rates can increase. Such acts place a
great emphasis on time-efficient and quality management of crime scene
Richard Ramirez committed his first murder in June of 1984. His victim was a 79-year old woman
who was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered. Eight months later, Ramirez began a murderous
rampage that resulted in 13 additional murders and 5 rapes in the Los Angeles and San Francisco
areas. His modus operandi (MO) was to enter the home through an open window, shoot male
residents, and rape his female victims. Media dubbed him the “Night Stalker” as he evaded police for
over a year. The break in the case came when the license plate of what appeared to be a suspicious
vehicle related to a sighting of the Night Stalker was reported to police. The police processed the car
for fingerprints and found one usable partial print. This fingerprint was entered into the Los Angeles
Police Department’s new IAFIS computerized fingerprint system. The Night Stalker was identified as
Richard Ramirez, who had been fingerprinted following a traffic violation years earlier. Police
searched the home of one of Ramirez’s friends and found a gun linked to the murders; in addition,
Ramirez had given the jewelry of the victims to his sister. Ramirez was convicted of 13 counts of
murder, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults, and 14 burglaries. He was sentenced to death, but
died of lymphoma in 2013 while awaiting execution. Without IAFIS, it would have taken a single
technician manually searching the 1.7 million fingerprint cards in LA roughly 67 years to come up
with a match. The IAFIS system radically changed the use of fingerprint evidence

trial court’s instructions to the jury in this case appropriately conveyedthe

principle embedded in section 1097 and Dewberry.As noted, the court instructed
the jury withCALCRIM No. 521. The jurywasthus told that if itfounddefendant
guilty of murder, itmust determine “whether it is murder of the first or second
degree.” Because the defense did not dispute that defendant murdered Niemi,
the jury knew it must decide whether defendantcommitted first or second
degree murder. On this issue, the jury was informed that “[t]he People have the
burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was first
degree murder rather than a lesser crime.” It was also told“[i]f the People
have not met this burden, you may not find the defendant guilty of first
degree murder”and “[a]ny murder which is not proved to be the first degree is
murder of the second degree.” So instructed, reasonable jurors would
havegraspedthat if they harboreda reasonable doubt “that the killing was first
degree murder,” then the People hadnotdischargedtheir burdento prove
suchmurder.When that happens,jurors“may not find defendant guilty of first
degree murder” andmust return a verdict of second degree murder. In sum,
reasonable jurors would have understoodthat if they have reasonable doubt that
the murder was of the first degree, theymust find defendant guilty “only of the
lesser offense” of second degree murder. (Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 555;
accord, e.g., People v. Buenrostro(2018) 6 Cal.5th 367, 431 (Buenrostro) [“We
presume jurors understand and follow the instructions they are given”].)
trial court’s instructions to the jury in this case appropriately conveyedthe
principle embedded in section 1097 and Dewberry.As noted, the court instructed
the jury withCALCRIM No. 521. The jurywasthus told that if itfounddefendant
guilty of murder, itmust determine “whether it is murder of the first or second
degree.” Because the defense did not dispute that defendant murdered Niemi,
the jury knew it must decide whether defendantcommitted first or second
degree murder. On this issue, the jury was informed that “[t]he People have the
burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was first
degree murder rather than a lesser crime.” It was also told“[i]f the People
have not met this burden, you may not find the defendant guilty of first
degree murder”and “[a]ny murder which is not proved to be the first degree is
murder of the second degree.” So instructed, reasonable jurors would
havegraspedthat if they harboreda reasonable doubt “that the killing was first
degree murder,” then the People hadnotdischargedtheir burdento prove
suchmurder.When that happens,jurors“may not find defendant guilty of first
degree murder” andmust return a verdict of second degree murder. In sum,
reasonable jurors would have understoodthat if they have reasonable doubt that
the murder was of the first degree, theymust find defendant guilty “only of the
lesser offense” of second degree murder. (Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 555;
accord, e.g., People v. Buenrostro(2018) 6 Cal.5th 367, 431 (Buenrostro) [“We
presume jurors understand and follow the instructions they are given”].)

The 43 felony charges involved 13 murders. Prosecutors said most of the

crimes contained various Ramirez “signatures,” such as “distinctive” and
“gaping” stab and slash wounds to the throat or body; the language he
used that was recounted by survivors; the use of ligatures and restraints,
including handcuffs and thumbcuffs, and unusual Avia shoe prints at
some of the crime scenes.

Another alleged Ramirez trademark was the pentagram, which first

appeared at the scene of a murder in Monrovia, drawn on a bedroom wall
and on a victim’s thigh. Such pentagrams also were found on the
dashboard of Ramirez’s car and on his arm.
Four handguns were used, but only one was recovered. However,
firearms tests showed that unused bullets in a Ramirez bag had been
loaded into the gun that was used in two of the incidents. Finally, about
375 pieces of jewelry and other personal property taken from six of the
murder sites were recovered and linked to Ramirez. INCIDENT Jennie
Vincow, murdered June 27 or 28, 1984, in Glassell Park home. Sustained
multiple knife wounds. EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Suspect’s
fingerprints found in home. VERDICT Guilty INCIDENT Dale Okazaki,
murdered March 17, 1985, in Rosemead. Died of .22-caliber gunshot
wounds. Maria Hernandez injured in attack. EVIDENCE AGAINST
RAMIREZ Hernandez identifies Ramirez. VERDICT Guilty INCIDENT
Tsai-Lian Yu, murdered March 17, 1985, in Monterey Park. Died of .22-
caliber gunshot wounds. EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Eyewitness
identifies Ramirez. Gun linked to previous shooting. VERDICT Guilty
INCIDENT Vincent and Maxine Zazzara, murdered March 28, 1985, in
Whittier. Multiple knife and gunshot wounds. House burglarized.
EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Avia shoe print found. Use of restraints
and ligature. Ramirez, in jail, boasts over crime scene photos. VERDICT
Guilty INCIDENT William Doi, murdered May 14, 1985, in Monterey Park.
Died of .22-caliber gunshots. Home burglarized. EVIDENCE AGAINST
RAMIREZ Avia shoe print found. Stolen property found. Thumbcuffs used
as restraints. Witness reports seeing Ramirez outside home. VERDICT
Guilty INCIDENT Mabel Bell, murdered May 29-June 1, 1985, in Monrovia.
Blunt force to head with hammer. Florence Lang injured in attack. Home
burglarized. EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Avia shoe print found.
Property recovered. Pentagrams at scene. VERDICT Guilty INCIDENT
Mary Louise Cannon, murdered July 2, 1985, in Arcadia. Sustained knife
wounds. Blunt force trauma and strangulation. House burglarized.
EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Avia shoe print found. Stolen property
recovered. VERDICT Guilty INCIDENT Joyce Lucille Nelson, murdered
July 7, 1985, in Monterey Park. Blunt force trauma, strangulation. House
burglarized. EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Avia shoe print found.
Witness reports seeing Ramirez outside home. VERDICT Guilty Maxon and
Lela Kneiding, both murdered July 20, 1985, in Glendale. Shot, stabbed,
nearly decapitated. House burglarized. EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ
Property recovered. Gun linked to previous shootings. VERDICT Guilty
INCIDENT Chainarong Khovananth, murdered July 20, 1985, in Sun
Valley. Gunshot wound. Wife assaulted in attack. EVIDENCE AGAINST
RAMIREZ Avia shoe print found. Wife identifies Ramirez. Stolen property
recovered. Gun linked to previous shootings. Use of restraints and ligature.
VERDICT Guilty INCIDENT Elyas Abowath, murdered Aug. 8, 1985, in
Diamond Bar. Gunshot wound. House burglarized. Wife assaulted in
attack. EVIDENCE AGAINST RAMIREZ Gun linked to previous shootings.
New shoe print, Stadia brand, found. Property recovered. Wife identifies
Ramirez. Use of restraints. VERDICT Guilty
Considering that Ramirez's prints were found on the mirror of a stolen
vehicle we can conclude that his fingerprints were two-dimensional,
therefore the prints are termed as latent or residue prints. The authorities
at the crime scene power-dusted his prints considering that is the best
physical method for collecting fingerprints. Once analyzed using the ACE-V
(analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification) method, the fingerprint
expert was able to identify them as belonging to Ramirez. The ACE-V
method is cited as being a scientific method in the comparison and
identification of fingerprints. Meaning, that this method is the protocol all
forensic scientists follow to conclude to accurate and consistent results
making this procedure extremely important for this significant piece of
evidence. Among them were things like distinguishing slash wounds in five
murders across the victim's necks, similar handcuff marks on various
victims' wrists and blunt force head trauma to half of the victims (Chen,
1989.) Shoe prints were also left at the scene of two murders, the shoe
prints had to be either a visible print, plastic print or latent print.
Examiners use several methods in the collection of shoe prints depending
on the type of impression that is left at the scene of the crime. For
collections in soil, which was where the print was found in the Ramirez
case, casting is the most commonly used collection method for
analyzation. The evaluation and comparison of impression evidence is
usually performed by a trained footwear and tire mark examiner (NFSTC,
2013). The shoe prints were later identified to be a match to one another
and ultimately belonged to Ramirez. All of these details didn't emerge or
emanate together until after Ramirez was caught. After Ramirez's arrest,
authorities say his fingerprints were matched with prints found at serval of
the crime scenes.