U.S.

Departmentof Justice
National Institute of Justice
This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the
person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated
in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policies of the National lnstitute of
Justice.

Perm~sslonto reproduce thls c m materlal has been

granted by
cilbuP ~amin/NIJ

SU tnemtrapeD of
ecitsuJ
to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)

Further reproduct~onouts~deof the NCJRS system requlres permls-

slon of the -owner

I- - ---- . -- - . -- -- -

ECNEICS CISNEROF DNA EHT

:STRUOC

The se U and-Efects cifitneicS fo ecnedivE

ni
esaC lanim rC
gnis ecorP

hpesoJ L.
nosret P
nhoJ .P
nayR
eniluaP J: n e d l u o H
nev tS
civoljahiM

laniF
tropeR

yraunaJ
6891

sihT hcraes r sah ne b rednu detrop us a tnarg morf eht

lanoitaN
.ecitsuJ fo etutitsnI stnioP of weiv esoht era snoinipo ro fo
eht
srohtua dna od ton e h t tneserper yliras ecen laic f o seicilop fo
eht
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x i i i

Executive Summary ..................... xvii

Chapter I: THE ROLE OF EVIDENCE IN THE ADJUDICATION OF

CRIMINAL CASES: A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1

7Introduction ...................... 1
7 What Role for Evidence ................. 2
Types of Evidence: A Breakdown ............. 8
Forensic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Development of Forensic Laboratories . . . . . . . . 11
Empirical Research into the Utilization of
Scientific Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Access by the Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>The Effectiveness of Scientific Evidence
in the Judicial System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Chapter 11: GOALSANDMETHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Project G o a l s . . . . . .........
.. . . . . . . . . . 22
..............
ReportOrgani.ation...
\?
,@
. . . . . ai . . . . . . . 26
Chapter 111: 6
STUDY SITE DESCRI *IONS@
,! .... .... 29

I O ~ U C O . . . . . . . \ .+M
0,
. . . . .
..............
Chicago/Cook C o u n t y . . . .
29
29
Peoria County ....... ...............
i 39
..........
Kansas City/Jackson County. Missouri 45
...........
Oaklandl~lamedaCounty. California 51
............
New HavenILitchfield. Connecticut 57

Chapter IV: RATES OF UTILIZATION OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE

1975.1981 .................... 67

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Method of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
The Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
/Overall Rates of Usage of Forensic Evidence . . . . . . . 74
. .-
t Rates- of-Usage-of Forensic Evidence-by Crime.Type- c
Rates of Usage of Specific Types of Forensic Evidence . .
Change in Rates of Usage of Specific
Types of Forensic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7-6-'-
81

> Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter V: SURVEY OF THE NATION'S CRIMINALISTICS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
LABORATORIES

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Origin and Placement of Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . 107
Service Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Availability of Services to Various Users . . . . . . . . 109
Laboratory Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Number of Personnel in Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Case Examination Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Laboratory Caseloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Technological Innovations and Research . . . . . . . . . 123
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7Chapter VI: IMPACT OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE FROM THE TRIAL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Plea Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Pre-Trial Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Jury Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Defense Challenges . . . . .f . . . . . . . . 141
Effectiveness of Expe ........ 145
Overall Evaluation of . . . . . . . . . 148
en~e..~

) Chapter VII: IMPACT OF FoRENsfZ E$$ENCE !

FROM T H @ P ~. $ S PERSPECTIVE
E ;. . . . . . . . 151
' e P$J $"
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .
4.
,.i*&
151
Method of Approach .................. 154
The Cases ....................... 155
..........
Comprehension of Forensic Evidence 157
.......
Relative Importance of Forensic Evidence 158
..........
Witnesses and their Persuasiveness 160
..
Multivariate Analysis of Selected Dependent Variables 161
Summary ........................ 164

Chapter VIII: CONVICTION: THE INFLUENCE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE.

OTHER TYPES OF EVIDENCE AND EXTRA-LEGAL
...................
FACTORS 167

Introduction- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
_ -__ .
..
..
. - .
. -....

Forensic Evidence and Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Tangible Evidence and Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Other Evidence, Extra-Legal Factors and Conviction . . 174
Multivariate Analysis of Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . 176
 CONTES F TABLE
)deunitnoc(

retpahC :I IV :NOITC VNOC EHT INFLUEC FO CISNEROF

.ECN DIVE
REHTO OF TYPES ECN DIV AND
LAGE - RTX
SROTCAF
)deuni tnoc(

stcef E ehT fo
ecn divE c sneroF
no ytil ba orP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
fo noitc v C
si ylanA detag r A . . . . . . . . 188
fo se n f O cif epS
yram uS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

retpahC IX: NOITCUDER EGRAHC DNA :ECN T ES INFLUEC

TH
OF CISNEROF .ECN DIVE REHTO .ECN DIVE AND

SROTCAF L GE ARTXE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

noitcud r nI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

:gnic etn S nA Overiw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

gnic et S dna s oitcudeR grahC . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

A htaP ledoM hcaorp A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

cisneroF d n ae c d i v E Reduction Charge . . . . . . . . . 211

Tangible .ecn divE Evidenc Othr egrahC dn Reduction . 213

A si ylanA etair v luM f o Charge noitcudeR . . . . . . . 214

:gnic etn S ehT Decison o t etar c nI . . . . . . . . 222

htgneL fo noitarec nI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

.noitc vnoC egrahC : g n i c e t n. So i t c u d e R Sumary

dna si ehtnyS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

retpahC :X tnems A s'rotuce P Evidenc of

ni
laciteh opyH Case . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

dohteM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Overiw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

ehT Decison Chargin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

gniraeH yranim le P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

dohteM f o :noit sop iD lairT/ e P . . . . . . . . . . . 261

dohteM f o :noit sop iD epyT fo Plea . . . . . . . . . . 269

dohteM f o :noit sop iD epyT fo lairT . . . . . . . . . . 272

esaC :emoctuO ro lat 'iuqc~ lairT Convict . . . . . . 274

esaC :emoctuO det iuqA ro Convicted . . . . . . . . . . 276

epyT fo ecn t S ...................282

htgneL f o ecn t S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

noisulc C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

retpahc% XI: YRAM US POLICY AND SNOITAC LPM .......293

yram uS f o rojaM sgnid F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

7 Policy snoitac lpmI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

....

SECN R F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1 1

SECIDN P A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
'
 FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 2.1 Types of Data to be Collected . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 3.1 Criminal Justice System Characteristics
of Study Jurisdictions (1981) . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 3.2 Crime Laboratory Study Site
Characteristics (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 4.1 Offenses Sampled in Six Study Sites (1981) . . . 71

Figure 4.1 Percent of Violent Offenses in Study Sample:

1975-1978-1981 ........ ....... . .73

Figure 4.2 Percent Felony Cases Filed with Forensic

Laboratory Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 4.2 Rates of Usage of Scientific Evidence by Offense
Category Over 1975-1981 ............. 77

Table 4.3 Importance of Forensic Evidence in Deciding the

Outcomes of Specific Offenses . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 4.4 Frequency of Occurrence of Scientific Evidence
by Offense Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 4.5 Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in Cases
Having Laboratory Reports - Chicago . . . . . . . 85
Table 4.6 Results of Laboratory Testing - Chicago . . . . 85

Table 4.7 Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in Cases

Having Laboratory Reports - Peoria .. .... * 86

Table 4.8 Results of Laboratory Testing - Peoria . . . . 86

Table 4.9 Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in Cases

Having Laboratory Reports - Kansas City . . . . 88a

Table 4.10 Results of Laboratory Testing - Kansas City . . . 88

Table 4.11 Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in Cases

Having Laboratory Reports - Oakland . . . . . . 89 a

Table 4.12 Results of Laboratory Testing - Oakland . . . . .89

--
-Table 4.-1-3 Top Fiv3-Evidence-Categories-Examined incases
Having Laboratory Reports - Litchfield .... 90

Table 4.14 Results of Laboratory Testing - Litchfield . . 90

Table 4.15 Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in Cases

Having Laboratory Reports - New Haven ..... 92
vii
 FIGURES AND TABLES (Continued)

Table 4.16 Results of Laboratory Testing - New Haven .... 92

Table 4.17 Importance of Forensic Evidence Types in Deciding

the Outcomes of Criminal Cases ......... 94

Table 4.18 Evidence Specific Laboratory Results

by Year - Chicago ................ 95

Table 4.19 Evidence Specific Laboratory Results

by Year - Peoria ................ 96

Table 4.20 Evidence Specific Laboratory Results

by Year - Kansas City. ............. 98

Table 4.21 Evidence Specific Laboratory Results

by Year - Oakland ................ 99

Table 4.22 Evidence Specific Laboratory Results

by Year - Litchfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Table 4.23 Evidence Specific Laboratory Results
by Year - New Haven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 5.1 Cumulative Frequency and Frequency Histogram
Date Crime Laboratories Established . . . . . . .lo8
Table 5.1 Jurisdiction Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I10
Table 5.2 Policy of Examining Evidence for Non-Law
Enforcement Officials by Type of Jurisdiction . . 111
Table 5.3 Comparison of Laboratory Budgets . . . . . . . . 114
Table 5.4 Mean Number of Scientific Personnel
Per Laboratory By Type of Jurisdiction
Served (1977 and 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
. . . . . . . . - 118
Table 5.5 Percent of Laboratories Which Examine Various
Categories of Physical Evidence

Table 5.6 Breakout of Caseload by Jurisdiction Served . . . 120

. . . . . . . . . . . - - -122
Table 5.7 Cases Per Examiner By Type of
Jurisdiction Served

Table 6.1 - ---

Trials and Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . _.-_
- --- - - -
.-135 . -

Table 6.2 Motions to Suppress Evidence . . . . . . . . . ,143

Table 7.1 Importance of Forensic Evidence in the Criminal

Justice Process ............... 152
viii
 SERUGIF AND SELBAT
)deunitnoC(

elbaT
7.2 resU gnid atsrednU fo ecna if ngiS fo
yrota b L
stlu eR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
351
elbaT
7.3 ro uJ :se nopseR esn f O epyT dna emoctuO esaC .
651
elbaT 7.4 lairT :emoctuO tcidreV dna ytlucif D/esaE of
nois ceD - nois erg R cits goL . . . . . . . . . 162

elbaT
8.1 cisneroF ecn divE dna noitc v C . . . . . . . .
17
elbaT
2.8 ecn divE elbignaT dna noitc vnoC . . . . . . . .
371
elbaT
8.3 :noitcivnoC
nois erg R cits goL esiwpetS
yb Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

elbaT
8.4 :noitc vnoC esiwp tS
nois erg R cits goL
yb esn f O epyT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Table
9.1 do hilek L fo nopU noitarec a nI
noitc v C
yb Site, gnil ortn C rof fo epyT esn f O . . . .
102
erugiF
-1.9

5.9 noitub r s D fo secn t eS noitarec a nI yb Site . 20

Table
9.2 htgneL a M fo noitarec a nI yb
gnil ort C ,etiS
rof epyT fo esn f O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Table
9.3 Charge do hilek L dna oitcudeR
fo
noitarec a nI .................. 206

elbaT 9.4 egrahC htgneL a M dna oitcudeR

fo
noitarec nI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
802
elbaT 9.5 ecn divE cisneroF dna noitcudeR egrahC . . . . . 12
2
erugiF
9.6 evitar sul I htaP :ledoM stcef E laitne oP
fo
,ecn divE lageL-artxE ,srotcaF dna
egrahC
noitcudeR gnic etn S opU . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 0

Table 9.6 egrahC :noitcudeR

nois erg R elpit uM esiwpetS
yb etiS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5

Table
9.7 egrahC :noitcudeR
nois erg R elpit uM esiwpetS
yb esn f O epyT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

I
elbaT
9.8 :noitarec a nI
nois erg R elpit uM esiwpetS
I
--
--
elbaT
9.9 :noitarec a nI
nois erg R elpit uM esiwp tS
I yb esn f O epyT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
htaP etisopm C :ledoM noi.tarec a n1 . . . . . . 29

 FIGURES AND TABLES (Continued)

Table 9.10 Length of Incarceration: Stepwise Multiple

Regression by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Table 9.11 Relationships Between Type of Offense and
Location of Arrest, by Site . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Table 9.12 Length of Incarceration: Stepwise Multiple
Regression by Offense Type . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Figure 9.8 Composite Path Model: Length of Incarceration . 243
Table 9.13 Summary of Influences Upon Conviction, Charge
Reduction and Sentencing .......... * 246

Figure 10.1 Variations in Tangible and Forensic Evidence . . 248

Figure 10.2 Design of the Study .............. 250

Table 10.1 Percentage D ~tribut

S ion of Case Charging
Decisions................... 255

Table 10.2 Adjusted Cell Means for Charging Decisions:

Interaction of Tangible Evidence, Identification,
and Confession for Rape Case ......... 257
Table 10.3 Adjusted Cell Means for Charging Decisions:
Interaction of Availability of Forensic Evidence,
Identification and Confession for
Attempted Murder ............... 258
Table 10.4 Percentage Distribution of Mode of Case
Disposition at Preliminary Hearing . . . . . . .260
Table 10.5 Percentage Distribution of PleaITrial Mode
of Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261
Table 10.6 Adjusted Cell Means for PleaITrial Disposition:
Interaction of Tangible Evidence, Location of
Forensic Evidence and Confession for Rape Case .263

Table 10.7 Adjusted Cell Means for PleaITrial Disposition:

Interaction of Confession, Tangible Evidence,
and Strength of Association of Forensic
Evidence for Burglary Case .......... .266

Table 10.8 Adjusted Cell Means for ~lea/Trial Disposition:

-1nCeract ion-of Confession7Ident-ificat-ion and--
Availability of Forensic Evidence
for Burglary Case ............... .267
 SERUGIF AND SELBAT
)deuni tnoC(

elbaT 10.9 detsuj A l eC srnoafe M : n o i t s o p aieDl P / a i r T

noitcare I fo htgner S , cnedivE elbignaT fo
noita c s A fo ecn divE cisneroF dna
noitac f nedI for yralg uB Case . . . . . . . . 268
elbaT 10.10 noitub r s D egatn cr P of Pleas ot lanig rO .sv
res L egrahC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 072
Table 10.11 Percntag fo noitub r s D Jury .sv hcneB slairT 273

elbaT 10.12 Percntag noitub r s D fo lairT lat iuqcA .sv

Convict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
elbaT 10.13 detsuj A l eC snaeM rof do hilek L fo ~cquit al/
:noitc vnoC noitcare I fo Evidenc, Tangible
noitac L fo ecn divE cisneroF dna noitac f nedI
rof Rape esaC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
elbaT 10.14 Percntag fo noitub r s D Type ecn t S fo . . . 28
elbaT 10.15 s n a e M l ed C t s u j d A rof Sentc :htgneL
noitcare I fo Tangible Confesi, dna ecn divE
Strengh fo noita c s A fo ecn divE c sneroF
rof Robery esaC ................ 284

elbaT. 10.16 r os fn a e M l C d e t s u j A Sentc :htgneL

noitcare I fo ,nois ef C Tangible ,ecn divE and
noitac f nedI for yreb oR Case . . . . . . . . . 285
Table 10.17 detsuj A l eC s n areoMf Sentc :htgneL
Interacio fo Confesi, ytil ba vA fo cisneroF
ecn divE and noitac f nedI for yralg uB Case . . 286
elbaT 10.18 yram uS fo stcef E tnacif g S yl acits S . . 28
xii


STNEMGD LWO KCA

hsiw eW ot egd lwonkca eht ecnatsi fo ynam ohw sno rep

detrop us

tcejorp uo revo eht tsap e rht .sraey sA si syawl eht esac ni

a

field hcus yd t sa siht era w ,eno

en hi t w s l a i c f o t d e b d n i

gnitarepo seicn ga ni ruo det imrep ohw seti yduts su s ec a ot

rieht

selif and detsi a su ni deris d ehtgnirehtag .noitamrofni eW

le f

very etanu rof ot have detc les eht study seti taht ew di rof we

noitarep c et lpmoc devi c r l a morf denr c o

.seicnega

Chicago, In ew knaht egduJ tr oC lanim rC gnid serP drahciR

-ztiF

dlareg and eht ynam segduj e h ft o ytnuoC k t r u o Ci c r C rof

-timrep

gnit su ot r i te h s v smo rt u c and ot retsin mda tixe syevrus

ot

.sro uj osla eW are detb dni o t

drahciR yenrot A s'eta S ytnuoC k

Daley, dna elk uK mail W tna si A tsriF .rM et s B hpesoJ

-sa rof

sitng su in ruo reviw fo rieht case .selif We ,knaht

ogacihC ,o t

Police tned ir puS derF ,eciR Deputy tned ir puS t aM Rodriguez,

dna- suorem n len osrep niht w eht scit lan m rc s'tnem rap D
-obal

.yrotar In ,ralucit p we rem of ht knaht dna srotcerid tner uc fo

eht

crime ,yrota b l .rM l ahsr M enid s oC dna .rD luaP

.l aG

nI Peoria, ,LI we lufetarg ot nhoJ ye r t A s'eta S Bar

dna

srebm fo sih .f ats evita c rp osla er W fo eht ecnatsi

-vorp

de i y b dna onasiP erotavl S tned ir puS tnaegr S ret P Geronts

fo

eht Police Peoria .tnem rapeD .rM hpesoJ cinobuB fo eta S ht fo

-1

sion l uaer B fo secivr S cif tne S cisneroF yrota b L ni Mortn,

,LI
osla de n l su elbau v
.ecnatsi a

tr ,re dceR DCstrict ~t or* ofJackson

dna ,silop kaD treboR ,tna si A tsriF .sM enaJ Picket,

- r o cs d r o c e

xiii
 ylem rtx w ,rotanid lufp eh ni noitamr f gnitcel o ruo ni
sa n K

City .noitacol We ,knaht ,o t eht f ats fo eht sa n K Police

Cty

:tnem rapeD namroN feihC Caron, redluoM mail WrojaM dna .rM Gary

rotce id ,l woH fo eht emirc

.yrota b l

adem lA nI CA, County, ew

morf n ita epo c et lpmoc devi c r

yenrot A tcir s D John nahe M , drahciR tna si A fe hC Iglehart, dna

yenrot A cirts D natsi A Donald .mah rgnI The dnalk O Police

-trapeD

s a tw n e m d n la u f p e h y r v ew knaht Georg Chif dnatr H .sM Jan

-nihsaB

rotce id ,iks fo eht scit lan m rc .yrota b l eW also knaht

.rM

treboR repo C fo eht County Alamed yrota b L scit lan m rC for

sih

.ecnatsi a

eW are lufetarg for eht de ivorp leh by ecilop ,lairotuces p

dna

eht uo g rht len osr p yrota b l Stae fo .tuci en oC Haven

Nw

s'eta S elkraM dlonrA ye ot A and dleifhct L s'eta S Atorney

sin eD

Santore detani ro c ruo s ec a ot tnavel r case .selif We

,o t ,knaht

.rD Forensic Chf Le, Hnry tsi ne cS fo tuci en oC eht Police

Stae

elbau v sih rof y tarob L

.ecnatsi a

tcejorp uO advisory tem l nap with su yl acido rep and

de ivorp

tnel cx advice dna .lesnuoc srebm M fo yrosivda eht group

de ulcni

egduJ Schiler Stephn fo eht County k tiucr C Court; .rD Petr

Narduli, ros ef P fo lacit oP Scien ta ytisrev nU eht fo

,sion l I

Champign; .rM Directo Lucas, Dogl fo eht cisneroF Sciens

-obaL

ratoy ni and Cand; Tornt, .rM l ahsr M Directo Hartmn,

e h ft o

lanoit N Defndr etu i snI ni Evansto, .LI Wealso knaht .rM

semaJ

sonemarG fo ko C eht Public Conty s'redn feD e m i t h r oefc i O and

trof e he detov ot eht

.tcejorp

vix
 We deil r nopu sevral stna lusnoc dleif dna at d srotcel ni
ruo

dleif :snoitacol .rM giarC Gand, Ms. dna set or G htiduJ .sM lyrehS

Krueg ni ,airoeP IL; .rM treboR redluoM ni sa n K MO; City, .rD

nhoJ

Thornt, .sM Dunca Debra nav ,laW red and .sM esin D is r oT
-kaO ni

,dnal and CA; .rD Gaensl, Robrt .rM samohT yar uM and .rM
samohT

rehc B ni dna leifhct L New ,nevaH

.TC

.rM egro G Sholenbrg, ruo JIN tnarg monitr,

htiw su de ivorp

ecnadiug na ecnatsi gniu t oc from eht evitc psr e h ft o

gnid uf

.ycnega We, tnaw ,osla k n a ho t eht snezod fo lairt ni sye rot a

eht

suoirav study snoitac l who de rga ot eb dew ivretni and de ivorp hw

su

with tna ropmi sthgisn from .sevitcepsr ieht srebm ehT

e h ft o

felony lairt nois v d fo ko C eht County, ,LI s'eta S s'yenrot A Ofice

wer suoren g yl a ucitr p r i eh t w emit yb gnitelpmoc

ruo

.soiranec s laciteh opy

f a t s c e j o r up O ni demrof p gacihC .ylbarimda In

,ralucitrap

ew wish ot knaht .sM Gielarowsk, C .sM .F Boyd, Desir

.sM

Melisa Smrz dna .sM Yvone .htimS Yvone deir ac eht nedrub fo
-unam

yrtne pircs modifcatn and dna sevr d laiceps .sknaht

sro ef P

semaJ Joseph Osterbug, ,lociN Kerst, Wayn treb H Hamilton,

nhoJ

ramdiV and ThomsDug and rehto setaico fo eht Centr rof Resarch

ni Justice and Lw de ivorp ynam s m il cu f tp re h and

.snoitseg us

hopeW seicn f d eht ni trope siht minor, ae e s h tr ou fb

ew

l uf tpec a
.ytil b snop er
 evitucexE
yram uS

sihT study ske ot ebircs d eht dna se u stcef fo

lacisyhp

)cif tneics( ecn div ni eht ,gni rahc aelp ,noita gen lairt
dna

gnic et s segats fo eht ecitsuj lanim rc .s ecorp ,yl acif epS

eht

tcejorp dah ruof lapicn r

:sevitcejbo

o To a polev d tra-eht-fo-eta s eliforp fo eht s'noitan

emirc

no noitamr fn g itcel o ,seirota b l rieht ,secruo

seic lop

and epocs fo
.snoitarepo

o To etami s eht setar fo egasu fo tner f id sdnik of

cif tne s

dna se n f o lanim rc ni ec d v fi es ht setar evah degnahc

ni

tnec r
.sraey

o To etami s eht stcef fo cisnerof ecn dive no eht

noit s p d

fo
.stnad ef ynolef

o To polev d an gnid atsre nu fo how cisnerof ecn div si

devi crep

deyolpm na yb srotuce p and n i syenrot a esn f d rieht

-ldnah

gni fo lanim rc truoc

.se ac

hcaorp A

--__ _ --

We noita m xe siht dehcaorp fo egasu ecn dive cisnerof

dna

tcapmi from a number fo tner f id ,sevitc p re yteirav a gniyolpme

fo

xvi

 dat gathering stra egi s. In orde to establish rates of usage of

scient fic evidence and to det rmine the ef ects of this evidence on

case outc me, we to k a random sampling of felony case fil ngs in six

jurisdictions acros the country: Chicago a n d P e o r i a , I l i n o i s ;K a n s a

City, Mis ouri; Oakland, California; a n dN e w H a v e n and Litchfield,

Con ecuti . Thes samples wer taken from thre years: ,6791
8791

tication of forensic s ience (crim nalist c ) laboratory services,

we

conducted a mail survey of al crime laboratories in t h eU n i t e d S t a e s .

To ac omplish the goal'of det rmin g trial at orneys' perceptions

fo

the importance of forensic evidence, relativeto other types of evidence

tha could be pres nted in court, we interview d prosecutors and def nse

at orneys in al study site. We also distributed hypothetical case to

prosecutors in the f lony trial div sion of the sta e' at orney's

of ice in Chicago to tes in a more control edman er the relative

ef ects of ey witnes es, confes ions, tangible and scientif c evidence

on crim nal case proces ing. And, last y, to dev lop a bet r under-

standing of the impact of various types of evidence in the court o m, we

survey d sev ral h u n d r e d j u r o sw h o had just returned verdicts in felony

trials.

Forensic E v i d e n c eU s a g e

Ther are ero'm than 03 crime laboratories acros t h Ue n i t e d

Sta es, most situated within police agenci s. Ac ording to their own

- --
,-t rope the bulk of-casewrk -kirtlies3i lab53kries si not evidence

related to personal or property crimes, tub the identif cation of drugs

xvi3.i
 and narcotics and the det rmination of alcoh l content of samples

obtained from su pected drunk drive s. Nationwide, only about

one-quarte of crime laboratory caseloads are violent and property crime

relat d.

One of the major objectives fo this study was to det rmine rates of

usage of various types of forensic evidence in six selected judic al

sy tems. To achiev this, we relied principal y upon a thre year

(1975-8) random sampleof prosecutor case files in each of the

jurisdictions. In this sample of files, we searched for the pres nce of

laboratory reports and found such reports in about one-quarter to one-

third of case files.

The ap ear nce of such reports, howev r, varies widely as a func-

tion of of ense type. Virtual y al murder and drug prosecution files

have laboratory reports, but only 1 0t o 20% of at empt

murders/ag rav ted bat eries do. Rob eries seldom have scientif c

evidence (les than ,)%02 while burglaries have scientific reports as

o f t e na s one-third t h e time. Laboratory input to rape prosecutions

varies widely, from as high as %07 in one jurisdiction to as low as 30%

in another. Variations in rates of usage acros clas es of crimes is

largely a function of the seriousnes of the of ense, the types of

evidence whichmay result from those crimes, the i n f o r m a t i o wn h i c h m a y

be derived from the vidence via scientif c an lysi , andhow prosecu-

tors and the court view the importance of the evidence in proving the

el ments of the of ens . Variations acros study sites within thesame

of ense 'category are primarily functions of local law enforcem nt

~ ~ - -
.~.
~

priorit es and resources dna the qualifications of both scientif c and

legal person el.

xi
 The fivecategories fo scientif c evidence which ap ear most

frequently are ni( this orde ) drugs, fingerp ints, firea ms, blo d and

blo dstains and semn. This pat ern fo usage sug est tha laboratories

are most like y to be asked to an lyze evidence tha is mandatory for

prosecution fo a case. Specif cal y, laboratories are most com only

requested to identify su pected control ed sub tances. In a related

man er, laboratories a r e a l s o com only requested to find the pres nce of

sem n in samples taken from victims of al eg d rape, in order to estab-

lish tha sexual intercourse di ocur. Another major priority

si

requesting laboratories to examine evidence which can conclusively link

the def nda t with a crime, as with fingerp ints or firea ms. From a

prosecutor's standpoint, ther si les inter st in evidence whose an ly-

si may onlypartial y ro( proba il stical y) link a def ndant with a

crime, for example blo dstains, hair or other trace evid nc . Our

interviews ith prosecutors also indicate tha they place great value on

forms fo evidence with which juro s are famil ar (such as fingerp ints)

and about which experts can deliver clear and unequivocal sta em nts.

Laboratory directors gen ral y concur with the priorit es of prose-

cutors and cite drugs, fingerp ints and firearms as the most influential

of al forms of regularly examined evid nce. They are more dubious, as

are prosecutors, about the signif cance fo trace vidence which may be

col ected in an investiga on. Cor elatively, laboratory scientist

believ their examinations of evidence t oh a v e their great s impact in

drug and homic de prosecutions. Forensic scientist also believ their

examinations to have substantial impact in rapes, while prosecutors are

- - -maretniv - f o- e hutl-a vu o b a - -laet-syhp iwitle- inSuChcases.

 Our revi w fo prosecutor files ind cates tha labor t ies have

\
regular suc es ni chemical y identifying su pect d drugs (90% or more

of the .)emit Find g sem npres nt am o r e dif cult chal eng

,tub

nev rthel s , labor t ies locate ti in samples from al eg d vict ms

fo

rape from 05 to %57 of the .emit Labor t ies are able to link def -

ants a n d crimes t h r o u g h te a n l y s i fo firea ms and fingerp ints more

than lf the .emit The an lysi fo blo dstain evid nce serv to

as ociate the def nda t and the c r i m e about 02 - %05 of the time.

Althoug we frequently read ro hear about the importance of more

esot ric forms fo evid nce (e.g., hairs, fibers, glas , paint, soil,

).cte in ac ounts of cel brated crimes, our res arch shows they ra ely

ap e r in case routinely proces d through the crim nal courts. This

si both a function fo the infrequ ncy with whic s u c h evid nce si re-

cover d from the scen s of crimes and an lyzed in the labor t y as wel

sa the more lim ted i n f o r m a t i ownh i c h examiners may extrac from .ti
ehT

low rates fo usage are the result of a host of factors, but partic-

ulary: insuf ic ent crime scen and labor t y resources to c l e t

and examine the evidence; m a n d a t o r y a n l y s i fo su pected contr l ed

sub tances in a n y drug p r o s e c u t i o nw h i c h a s the f ect of displacing

other types fo evid nce which prosecutors perc ive to be no es ntial to

their case; prosecutorial and related lega person el who are

unfamil ar/uncomf rtable with scientif c evid nce; and an overloade

judic al sy tem in which key actors ( s u ac h p r o s e c u t ) elct not to

employ the ful range of scientif c services because t h e ya r e perc ived

to eb costly and an imped nt to the r a p i d i s p o s i t o n of

.se ac
- --- - -
- --- -- -- -

We also at empted to det rmine fi ther w e a n y c l e a r t ends in

the rates fo u s a g e of scient fic evid nc . With t h en a t i o n w i d e increas

ix
 in the number fo labor t ies, the gr ater sophist ca ion fo techniques

and instruments with n the labor t ies and a judic al sy tem growing

more rec ptive to this type fo information, we might exp ct ot find an

increas in util za on. This, howev r, si the .esac Rates are

fairly s t e a d y acros of ens types a n d jurisd ct on . fI anything,

ti

ap e rs tha drugs oc upy an ev n large share of the forensic evid nc

"eip ni 198 than they di in .5791 Implic t in such a trend,

fo

course, si tha ther si now les non drug- elat d forensic evid nce

being examined and used in personal andpro e ty crimes t h a n ther was

in the mid-1970s.

Chargin and Mode fo Dispo it on

Althoug our case file an lysi does not permit us to examine the

move nt of case from the time of ar est to the point fo chargin , we

di learn how scient s and prosecutors view the importance fo forensic

evid nce in making chargin decis on via intervi ws and our

hypothetical case anlysi. In ad it on, an earlie companio project

complet d yb the authors (Pet rson te ,.la )4891 found tha charges are

g e n r a l ym o r e like y to be filed for a est w h e r physical evid nce

si

c o l e c t e da n examined than case withou such scient fic evidnc.

Labor t y directors think forensic evid nce si of moderate impor-

tance in decis on to c h a r g e d f e n d a n t sw i t h a c r i m e (les. importan

than sti use in verifying sta em nts of witnes , tub more importan

than provid ng investigative leads to detcivs). Prosecutors think

-- - - - - - -- -- - -

forensic evid nce relatively unimportan in decis on to charge, relying

instead on sta em nts of ey witn s e . The clas ic exc ption to this

ix
would be the nec s ity fo having a laboratory an lysi in charging a

def nda t with drug pos e i n. One of the prima y reason prosecutors

note tha forensic evidence is not normal y consider in decis on to

charge is tha laboratory esults typical y are not av ilable ta the

time thes decis ons have ot be mad. Realistical y, then, fi forensic

science laboratories are to make ag r e a t e r impact ta this stage fo the

justice proces , resources would have to eb expande to enable them to

examine evidence and repo t result in a much shorte time frame.

We also examined the chargingdecis on via our hypothetical case

reviw. The hypothetical case varied ni the strength fo forensic and

tangible vidence, fi the def nda t was identif ed yb an ey witnes , and

fi the d fenda t confes ed to the crime. Each prosecutor was asked to

ind cate the most likely path of disposit on for each case, begin g
ta

the point of charging and extending through sent cing.

tA the point of chargin , ti si in the absence or weakn s of

sev ral forms fo evidence (including the forensic) wher prosecutors

think charges would be declin . In the ypothetical at emp murde ,

for example, ti si only wher the def nda t fails to confes to the

crime, ther are no ey witnes es and n o forensic evidence tha prosecu-

tors predict they would not bring charges ag inst the def n a t. For

rapes, ti is wher tangible and forensic evidence onlyweakly as ociate

the d fenda t with the of ense tha they are unlike y ot charge.

The an lysi of our hypothetical case also provides ins ght to the

method of case dispo t n. Likeliho d of trial, for example, for both

the at empt murder and rob ery case si af ected by an interaction of

- - -- - - - - -- - -- -

ey witnes identif cation a d pres nce/ absence fo forensic evidnc.

In both crimes, ti is in the absence of both types fo evid nce wher

i x
 prosecutors expct the case to eb more like y resolved by a . elp In

gen ral, then, ti si the absenc of more than one type fo evid nce whic

increas the like ho d fo a plea, but only up to a point. fI the

evidence becom s so weak in a case tha the def nse perc ives ther to

eb a go d chan e of win g (acquit l) they wil ins t the case be

t a k e n t o trial.

Conviction

On aver g , our s a m p l e fo prosecutor files r e v a l e d tha 70 to

%08

fo c a s e result in convict on, us al y through a plea t o t h e top charge.

Typical y, only 5 to 10% of case are resolved ta trial. Chicago si an

exception wher about %03 of case go to trial. Due to theigh rates

of conviction for case sampled in this study, we are unable to ac ount

for much variation in convi t /no c vi t on. Admis ions and

-ni

crim nating sta em nts (made by about one-third of def nda ts) are the

most consi ten ly importan clas of evidence in explain g convi t .

The av ilab ity of t a n g i b l e videnc , something physical like stolen

po erty tub( not scientif cal y an lyzed) as ociat ng the def nda t with

the crime (more than half the sampled case had one or more such items)

was also importan in am j o r i t y of the site . F o r e n s i c evid nce was a

sta istical y sign ficant, main predictor in only one of the study

locatins: Peoria. Her we found tha the mer pres nce of a labo-

ratory repo t increas d the like ho d of conviction by 61 perc ntage

points; the introduction fo a l a b o r a t o r y repo t as ociating the def n -

-- - - --- - - - - - -

ant with the crime, howev r, has an ev n greater ef ct, increasing the

proba il ty of conviction by 36 p e r c e n t a g e points. F o r e n s i c evid nce

xxiv
 interac d with other evid ntiary vari bles ni Kansa City and New Haven

to produce a sign ficant efct on case outcme. In New Haven, the

ef ct fo the forensic vari bles hinges on the s e r i o u s n e s fo the

-fo

fens, tub in Kans City ti si wher the def ndant refus to make a

sta em n to authorit es tha the a b s e n c e of a lab repo t sign ficantly

reduc s convict on rate.

When we ag re at of ens of a s i m l a rn t u r e , we f i n d forensic

evid nce has its great s main ef ct on the conviction fo def nda ts

charged with murde , burgla y and thef. The pres nce fo a n y t pe

fo

labor t y repo t increas the rate of conviction for burgla ies, while

lab repo ts as ociat ng the def n a t with the crime prove to eb sign f-

icant ni murders and thefs. For rapes, the absence of a labor t y

repo t leads to sign ficantly lower c o n v i c t i o n rates wher def nda ts

have also of er d alib s to law enforcem nt oficals.

nI our hypothe ical case, we find gen ral y tha prosecutors

exp ct a very hig pro tion of case t o result in convict on. We are

able ot identify sign ficant e x p l a n t o r yv a r i a b l e s for r a p e and at empt

murde case. Both rapes and t empt murde s are exp cted to result in

convict on les often when ther si no ey witnes identif cation or weak

tangible evid nce and no confes i . For the at empt murder ti also

ap e r d tha convict on was exp cted to be les :yleki )1 in the

absence of a confes ion and when forensic evidence weakly as ociates the

def nda t with the of ens , and 2) w h e n both the tangible and forensic

evid nce w e a k l y a s o c i a t e th def nda t with the ofens. A g a i n we note

tha prosecutors ap e r to think in terms of the absence of evid nce

hcCilw yamr wGken rie-ht ases and lead t o acquit l. The

forensic evid nc , rega dles of the certainty with which ti con ects

XW
 the def n a t with the crime, si predicted to result in higher rates
fo

convi t .

The outc mes fo the ypothe ical case decis on are in agre m nt

with our case file sample and our intervi ws with prosecutors in two

basic respct. First, the perc ption fo prosecutors tha most case

wil result in convict on si in fundamental agre m nt with our case

sample. Secondly, it si when case eith r lack evid nce and have two
ro

more forms of weak evid nc , including forensic, tha prosecutors reduc

their exp cta ions for convi t .

Charge R duction

Def nda ts are convicted of reduced charges in about %02 of prose-

cutions. Using this as our dep nde t vari ble, we find tha the absence

fo a prio crim nal reco d, ap r i o r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e n the d fenda t

and vict m, and case resolved by pleas al lead to convictions on a

reduced charge.

Only in Oakl nd does the pres nce of a laboratory repo t as ociat-

gni the def nda t with the c r i m e s i g n i f c a n t l y i n c r e a s e the rate of

conviction to the top charge. In the only jurisdiction (~ansas city)

wher a forensic variable interacts with another evid nce vari ble,
ti

si wher the def n a t is ue a sta em nt )ib la( which weakens the

prosecut ' case tha a forensic repo t as ociating the d fenda t with

the crime increas the likeliho d of a c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e t o p charge.

Our of ens specif an lysi shows tha forensic evid nce ex rts a

repo ts are as ociated with convictions to the top charge. In sev ral

m i

other of ens categories, the pres nce fo a laboratory repo t acts

ni

c o m b i n a t i o nw i t h a n i n c r i m n a t i n g s t a e m n t to lead to convictions to

the top charge.

Our hypothe ical dat are not dis im lar from thes case file

result . Ther is, howev r, only one of ense category (burgla y) wher

dat permit ed an an lysi fo this vari ble. Results gen ral y showed

the frequently noted disjunctive :elur the absence fo dif er nt forms

fo evidence ro the finding fo only tenta ive forensic evidence in a

distan location lead prosecutors to predict thed fendant would plea to

a reduced charge. When the def ndant denies com it ing the crime, when

ther are no ey witnes es and when forensic evidence is eith r recover d

ni a distan location r only tenta ively as ociates the def nda t with

the c,rime scen , chan es tha the case wil be pled to a les r charge

wer increas d.

Sentencing

Nonevidentiary factors predominately explain the nature and se-

verity of sanctions given convicted def nda ts. The more serious the

crime, t h ep r s e n c e fo a prior record and being convicted of the orig-

inal charge al are as ociated with sentences of incar e tion.

Typical y, no evidentiary factors influence the decis on to incarcerate

the d fen a t. The pres nce of forensic evidence, howev r, proves to

eb

an importan predictor in two sites (New Haven and Chicago), wher the

laboratory repo t leads to higher rates of incar e tion. In thes and

two ad it onal jurisdictions, forensic laboratory reports arealso

as ociated with hig er rates of incarceration, dep nding upon the se-

i vx
 riousnes fo the of ense in question. In the ag regated of ens

an lysi , sim lar factors are importan predictors fo sentence sev rity.

Forensic evidence si a factor in the sentencing of def nda ts who are

convicted fo at empt murder/ag rav ted bat ery and rob e y. As befor ,

the pres nce fo laboratory repo ts si as ociated with-higher rates of

incar e tion.

The ypothetical case file dat provide no ad it onal insght.

Such a high percentage fo prosecutors thoug t convicted ef ndantswould

eb sentenced to prison tha no an lysi was pos ible of factors influ-

encing the d cis on of whether or not to aw rd aprison sentence to

convicted felons.

Our examination fo length of sentence finds tha seriousnes fo the

o f e n s ea n d being convicted of the orig nal charge are the key pre-

dictors. Surp is ngly, thepres nce/absence fo forensic labor t y

reports si as ociated with the length of sentences ni four of the five

study site. In Chicago, ti si the absence fo laboratory repo ts whic

si as ociated with a reduction in length fo sentence by as much as

03

months .
The ag regated of ense an lysi finds tha forensic evidence reg-

isters its major impact for the crimes of at empt murder/ag rav ted

bat ery, rape, rob ery and burgla y. Longer sentences aregiven def nd-

ants wher laboratory reports are pres nt. In two f ense categories

(rob ery and thef ) the pres nce of an as ociative laboratory find g

has an ev ngreater ef ct on sentence length under condit ons wher

def ndant sta em nts are absent or consti ute a plausible alib .

For our hypothetical case dat , we are able to conduct an lyse for

thre of ense types: at empt murde , rob ery and burgla y. No evid n-

xwili
 tiary factors em rge as predictive of length of sentence for at emp

murde s. For the rob ery and burglary of ens , as in our earlie

an lyse , ti si the absenc of evidentiary factors which are relat d to

sentence length. In rob ery, ti si wher def nda ts fail to confes to

the crime, and the t a n g i b l ea n d f o r e n s i c evid nce only weakly as ociate

the def nda t with the of ense or ther si a lack fo a confes ion,

ey witnes identif cation and weak tangible evid nce tha prosecutors

exp ct a reduction ni sentence length fo( about thre .)sraey For

def ndants convicted fo burglary, ti si in the absence fo a confes ion,

forensic evidence and an ey witnes identif cation tha prosecutors

exp ct sentence length to be shorter than us al yb( about 2

.)sraey

Acros charge reduction, conviction and sentencing stages ther

si

a shift from gen ral reliance on def ndant background char cterist c to

evidentiary factors and back to def ndant background char cterist c .

One variable tha does not fit this trend si forensic evid nc .
tI

ex rts. tronger influenc in more jurisdictions i pn r e d i c t n g the length

of the sentence than ti does in explain g whether a case wil lead to a

conviction or fi t h ed f e n d a n t wil be convicted of the orig nal charge.

tI may be tha forensic evidence serves as particularly convincing

cor ob ration of the prosecuti n's case, reduc s any shread of dubt in

the judge's mind concerni g the def n a t's guilt and fre s the s nte c-

ing judge to give the def nda t t h em a x i m u prison

.mret

tI si inter sting tha forensic scientist thems lves beli ve

forensic evidence to have its least impact ta the point fo sent ci g.

We should rem ber tha scientist us al y do not rec ive fe dback from

tke c o u r t s abZut the outcomesof the case in which their examiners

tes ify, not tmoe n t i o n the great majority of case wher exp rts don't

xxix
 tes ify and the repo ts alone serv as the scientif c evidnc. Our

dat ind cate tha labor t ies seldom rec ive any form fo fe dback
ni

this lat er g r o u p of case.

Trial

Directors fo crime labor t ies estima e tha their examiners

tes ify in court in les than 10% fo the case t h e y examin. Con-

sequ ntly, ti si principal y the r po ts thems lves which us al y convey

scientif c information to various user ni the crim nal justice sytem.

Despite the infrequ ncy with which examiners testify in court, labo-

rato y examiners beli ve their examin t ons have their great s impact

ta the trial .egats Prosecutors to, share the opin on tha juries are

p a r t i c u l a r y i m p r e s db y f o r e n s i c evid nc . T h e y beli ve tha juries

"love to play det c ive" and tha physical evidence ad s to the

c r e d i b l i t yo f the pros cut ' .esac Inde , prosecutors admit they

someti s fear goin into a trial withou forensic evid nce if they

think the jury wil exp ct .ti I ns u c h situa ions, prosecutors wil go

to great lengths to explain why they are not introducing physical evi-

denc. Consi ten with this, our survey of juro s im ediately after

t h e i rd s c h a r g e from service in crim nal case , ind cates they beli ve

forensic exp rts are t h em o s t p e r s u a i v e of al witnes who ap e r

befor them.

Laboratory examiners beli ve police investiga ors and prosecutors

have the best understandi g of s c i e n t i f c evid nce, and tha judges and

d e f n s e a t o r n e y sh a v e a m o d e r a t e l y g o d understandi g. They beli ve

police of icers, a d m i n s t r a t o r s and juro s to have the porest. Prose-

XXX
 srotuc ev il b tsom taht era sro uj elbap c etiuq fo
yna g idnatsrednu

ecn dive cif tneics detn serp ot .meht l iw srotucesorP ad,

,rev woh

tah it si they ohw lacit rc e a ot eht ytil b sneh rpmoc fo

cisnerof

.ecn dive In rehto ,sdrow eht rotucesorp tsum evr s terp tnio
eht

otni ynomitse cif tneics smret do tsrednu ylisae yb a yal

.yruj

sro uJ detacidn ot su yeht dev ileb yeht do tsrednu eht

cif tneics

dna e c n d i v el a c i s y h p detn serp ot meht t s a e tl a sa l ew as,

- m o cd n a

e c n d i v e r h t o , n a h tr e b y l n o m ni eht .esac r e t a u q - e ntou b A

e h tf o

snezit c dah o w devr s no seiruj hci w detn serp ew htiw

cif tneics

ecn dive dev ileb taht dah ecn div hcus ,tnesba ne b yeht dluow
evah

degnahc rieht morf- tcidrev ot y liug

.ytliug ton

srotuce P etacidn taht k n i h ty e h t era segduj erom

decn irepx

dna r e d i s n o c td e r a p r e t b xelpmoc cif tneics ynomitse naht a

.yruj yehT tcepx taht fi ynomitse cisnerof o ts i eb lacit r

-opm c

ne t ni rieht esac dna esn fed eht yleki ot e hk tc a

,trepx cisnerof

taht eht defns y l e kd i u o w dnamed a jury

.lairt
--
s i y l a ne t i r a v t l u m r u O fo lairt tcidrev swoh srotcafowt to
eb

tnacif ngis :srotciderp sa y n o m i t s e' r c i f o e c i l o p

erom semoc b

evisau rep dna gnid atsrednu 'sro uj sa fo lacisyhp ecn div

,sevorpmi

sro uj more are denilcni ot tnad ef h t d n i f .ytliug The esa

htiw
I
I
s r o u jh c i w hcaer stcidrev rieht si decn ulfni yb tner f id a tes
fo

.srotcaf sA y r o t a b le m i r c srenimaxe emoc b ni ev sau r p e om

rieht

,ynomitse sro uj snoi ced rieht dnif ,rev woh ;reisa ti si

er hw

1 sro uj dnif eht ynomitse 'tnad ef d less evisau r p y e ht a evah an

reisae gnikam emit pu rieht .sdnim

1
1 ruO snoi suc id -esnefed-h-tiw- atorneys-licd a fo yteirav
-cat
--

scit yeht esu cisnerof egn l ahc ot gni ar ,ecn div morf strof e
ot
have the evidence ruled inadmis ible (on search and seizure or chain of

custody grounds) to at acks on the xpert's qualification or intense

cros -examination of the exp rt's conclusions. Usual y, howev r, de-

fense counsel at empt to "explain aw y" the physical evidence by sup ly-

ing a reasonable and lawful explan tion for its pres nce. If the above

tactics can ot eb used, def nse counsel wil usual y stipulate to the

evidence and at empt to draw as lit le at ention to ti as pos ible.

Contra y to a com only expres ed at itude tha defense at orneys

distrust the an lyse and testimony of "prosecution" experts, defense

counsel we interview d are basical y s a t i s f i e dw i t h the competenceand

no partisanship of forensic scientist with whom they have contac .

The final chapter sum arizes t h me a j o r findings fo the report and

discus es sev ral key policy questions ad res ed by the res arch.

Why haven't the rates fo usage of forensic evidence increased?

This condition si explained not only by the min mal resources

devoted to forensic laboratories but also by the complexity of the

crim nal justice proces and the n u m e r o u s d e c i s i o nm a k e r s (police in-

vestigators, evidence technic ans, prosecutors) outside the province of

the laboratory who det rmine if scientif c e v i d e n c ew i l a n d w i l not be

used. The igh drug caseloads coupled with the perception by prosecu-

tors tha scientif c resources should be used sparingly also contribute

to this condit on.

 seod yhW cisnerof ecn dive have tcapmi snoitc d ruj emos ni
tub
ton
?srehto

,sihT also, is a xelpmoc since question, eht s en vitc f e

ro

tcapmi fo such segnih noitamrofni upon eht snoitca fo s r o t cy an m ni

eht

laic duj .s ecorp yduts ihT saw htiw decaf convit hg setar
ni

tsom edam hci w snoitc d ruj ti tlucif d ylra ucit p ot nialpxe

eht

)l ams( snoita r v ni case .emoctuo We di howevr, find, tah ni

esoht

er hw snoitc d ruj cisnerof degr m ecn div sa tnacif g s a

rotciderp

fo noitc v and egrahc reduction, seirota b l more w

ni lufs ec

gnid vorp cif tne s stlu er fo ytnia rec t g and .ytif ceps tA
eht

tniop fo ,gnic et s eht ecnatropmi fo ecn div cisnerof whic sknil

eht

tnad ef d ot emirc ht is s el naht natropmi eht gniref o fo yna kind

fo
.trope yrota b l

tahW setavi om eht rotucesorp ot esu

?ecn div c snerof

sihT si an tna ropmi noitseuq for it also stcef a eht setar

fo

noitaz l u fo cif tne s .ecnedive tI sraep taht some

srotuce p

erom ekat fo htiw ecnats evitca r tceps r ot siht kind fo

ecn dive

. e n o evitca rp a naht nI rehto words, ecn div c snerof si desu more

ot

diova eht tcepsor fo gnisol an esiwr hto strong ,esac rathe naht
rof

tahw it e t u b i r y na om c ot eht gni w fo a case lanigr m gnivah

ecn dive

ot nigeb
.htiw
 Wher should law enforcem nt agencies concentrate their esources?

tI becomes clear tha scientif c evidence si not t h es i n g l e most

importan det rmina t in predicting if a casewil result in a convic-

tion. In fact, ti si the sta em nts of def ndantswhich stand out as

the best predictor. Nev rthel s , law enforcem nt agencies should place

compar ble emphasi on laboratory procedures to derive detailed informa-

tion from physical evidence as they do to gather it in the first place.

Ef orts must also be made yb police, prosecutors and def nse at orneys

to increase theirunderstanding of forensic results and to take a more

rational ap roach to its use in the adjudication of crim nal case .

 CHAPTER I

THE ROLE OF EVID NCE IN THE ADJU ICAT ON OF CRIM NAL CASE:

A BRIEF REVI W OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Law scho l course in crim nal e v i d n c e p r e s u m t h ep r m i n e c

fo

evid nce ni det rmin g the outc mes of case , at least in the adju ic -

tion fo guilt or in oce . Legal r e a l i s t , a n d t h e i rm o d e n day social

scien adher nts, by contras , emphasize "extra-lg -- soci logical,

demographic, polit cal -- considerations in the disposit onfo case.

Somewher betw n thes two extr mes like y lies reality. Evidence

plays na importan , but far from exclusiv , role in t h ed t e r m i n a t i o n

fo

a defnat's guilt or in ocen and sent c . But this um ary evalu-

tion itself si vague. Wher betw n t h e two p lar views does tru h

actual y lie? And fo particular inter s ot this res arch project, what

si the "value ro efct of scient fic (forensic) evidence as op sed to

other types fo evid nc , such as complain t and ey witnes tes imony,

recov red pro e ty, incr minat g sta em nts ro confes ions by the

def nda t, or police reconstruction fo the crime? This tudy se k to

as e the uniq e contribution of forensic evid nce to he chargin ,

plea negotia on, trial, and sentencing stages of crim nal case

adju ic t on.

 What Role For Evidenc ?

Evidenc could be exp cted to be the suprem predictor of case

proces ing. The lega com unity has declared tha evidence should be

thek y det rmina of trial outc mes; consequ ntly, the op ortunit es

for extraneous ro "extra-l g " considerations to af ect decis ons are

careful y lim ted yb rules fo evid nce w h i c h j u d g e s n f o r c e , by careful

s c r u t i n y and sel ction fo juro s (voir de) and yb ap el ate reviw.

Yet the role fo evid nce in the decis on fo whet r t o charge, its

importance ni plea negotia ons, or t h e as e m nt fo ap ropriate

punishment si tfel to the discretion of t h e d cis onmaker. The lega

c o m u n i t y clear y exp cts tha evid nce s h o u l dp a y some role in al

thes decis on , tub how much weight may be g i v e n t on e v i d e n t i a r y

factors (e.g. def n a t and witnes demographics) si ambiguo s.

What role does e v i d e n c e play in the prosecut ' decis on to charge

a su pect with a crime? Ther are two, s o m e w h a t c o m p e t i n g pers ctive .

One scho l fo thoug views t h ep r o s c u t o r ' s decis on as highly

discretionary (e.g., Cole, 1970; Hil er .)0791 Many p e o p l e a r e ar est d

by the police; based upon facts gather d yb the police most of thes

could be charged. Yet the majority are not charged. Com unity polit-

ics, prosecutorial priorit es in other crime are s, negative victim

ster otypes (Stanko, ,)1891 vict m/witnes char cteristics (~il iams,

1978) or conflicts with the police lead prosecutors to ignore the evi-

dence and dism case. Ac ording to t h i sv e w , evidence si nec s ary,

but not suf ic ent for a case to be charged. A second perspective iews

- ~ ~ ~ -- ~ -- ~ ~ ~

the sta e of the e v i d e n c e as the contrlig,.f not exclusive, f o r c e in

the prosecut ' chargin decis on .g.e( Bernstein, Kel ey & Doyle,
 197 ; Jacoby, .)2891 Boland te .la )8:3891( examined reason why

prosecutors rej cted felony ar est and found tha "witnes problems and

evid nc -relat d defic en i s ac ounted for half or more of the rej c-

tions ta screnig." She, also, found tha witnes and evid nce reason

ac ount for t hm ea j o r i t y fo nol es and dism als after charges wer

filed. Boland, also, det rmined tha witnes problems are much more

com n ni prosecuting crimes ag inst person than crimes ag inst pro-

erty (wher evid nce problems a r em o r e like y to

.)raep

The charge/no charge decis on wil vary, howev r, from jurisdiction

to jurisd ction on the basi fo of ice polic es. I ns o m ej u r i s d i c t i o n s ,

prosecutors may typical y charge provide ther si suf ic ent evid nce

to met a "proba le ' esuac standard (i.e., survi e scre ni g by a grand

jury ro prelim nary .)gniraeh In other jurisdictions, prosecutors may

adopt a stric er stand r , cho sing t o charge only case tha are "trial

' yhtrow -- win able fi pres d t o trial (Jacoby, .)2891 Sim larly, when

prosecutors wer asked to i n d c a t ew h t e r hypothetical case would be

ac ept d for prosecution (~acoby, 1982) an lysi confirmed ,eht impor-

tance of the evid nce as ociated with a .esac Charging decis ons wer

found to be prima ly det rmined yb the lega - vident ary s t r e n g t h of

the case, specif al y, whet r consti u onal rights wer violated

during the ar est (ther by rend ring evid nce legal y inadmsble).

Whet r ther was cor boration yb two or more police witnes , and

whet r pro e ty was found in the pos e ion of the def n a t. A prio

relationship betw n the vict m and ef nda t (also consider d a lega

evid ntiary factor) decr ased the proba il ty tha a case would be

charged. Charging decis on wer s e c o n d a r i l ya f e c t e d by the

-es

riousne of the of ens , w i t hm o r e s e r i o u s crimes m o r e l i k e l y to be

 charged. In sum, ac ording ot this view evidence si nec s ary and some

degre fo evidence wil eb suf ic ent for a case to eb charged.

Both perspectives rega d some lev fo evidence sa cru ial

ot

in tiate prosecutorial decis on to charge. But, neither has provide

any ins ght into the relative alue of dif er nt kinds of evid nce in

the charging decis on. We know neither the kinds of evidence prosecu-

tors dep nd upon to charge, nor the kinds of evidence prosecutors pur-

sue, once harges are filed.

The role of evidence inplea negotiations si also uncertai . Much

fo the uncertainty can be at ributed to the inconsi tent,varying

char cter of plea discus ions thems lves. In Prair e City a.( pseudonym

for a smal city ni ~llinois) , Neubauer )1 -0 2:4791( repots:

Plea barg in g centers first of al on guilt adju icat on.

That is, the lawyers an lyze what can be legal yproven

about what the su pect di .... In reading (other) studies,

one gains the impres ion tha the lawyers seldom discus

the lega uilt or in ocence of a su pect. That si not

the case ni Prair e City ... (wher) plea bargain g si best

view d as a min -tr al wher the two profes ionals an lyze

what the like y jury verdict would

.eb

sA Neubauer ac urately points out, other studies of plea barg in g

- befor and after his 1974 study -- have emphasized the sentencing

aspects of theat orneys ' discu ions. Newman (1966) port ays plea

discus ions as an "auction over sent ce. Roset and Cres ey

)5791(

emphasize tha plea se sions focus on sentence because ther is more

like y to be agre m nt about disposit on than about "oft-ambiguo s

".stcaf Heuman ,)7 91( to , emphasizes negotiations over sent ce, but

l a r g e l yb e c a u s e e x p e r i e n c e d d e f n s e a t o r n e y s b e l i e v tha most case

- - - ---- -
---

(perha s as high sa 90%) a r e withou any lega def nse . i e., "born

".daed Inthe terminol gy of thepublic def nders studied by Mather

 (1974, most, but not al , case are "dea bang" case wher the

strength of the prosecut ' evidence si overwh lming.

Can we ther fo e as ume tha evid nce plays lit le or no role

ni

plea bargain g, mer ly because ti t'nsi discus ed (much or ta al)

ni

plea confer nces? The lack of dispute over evid nce, or the choi e by

court o mactors to avoid talking about evid nce, does not nec s arily

imply a triv al lev fo influe c . Inde , q u i t e t h e o p o s i t em a y b e

true. The impact fo the videnc may eb so clear tha neither prosecu-

tion r def nse fe ls the ne d to discus

.ti

McDonald et .la )97 1( published a review fo factors consider by

prosecutors ni of ering a plea bargin: caseload, crim nality of the

def ndant, personal at orney at ributes, mit ga ing circumstances and

strength fo the case. ~ d also e ~

p r e s n t e d prosecutors with the op r-

tunity to sel ct categories of information rel vant ot a plea bargain g

decis on. Strength fo the c a s eu a s t h e most importan det rmina t,

which include: the basic facts fo the case, av ilable evid nce, ef c-

tiven s fo witnes es ta trial, the d fenda t's ac ount of the inc dent

and propriety of police conduct at and after arest. Lagoy te

.la

(1976) also found stae' at orneys decid ngwhether to of er a plea

barg in, very concerned with the vidence as ociated with a case.

Eisenstein and Jacob )7 91( at empted ot as es the impact of

evidence on actual case outc mes in thre cit es -- Chicago, Baltimore,

and Detroi . They found strength of evidence to be as ociated with

likeliho d of conviction and sentence imposed. They acknowledge,

howev r, the cruden s of their measures of evid nc . Furthe more,

their .~~
anl ys si ~
ag regates various -

fo- .sePpyt
'- - -se ~s-a sedu-lce rp- dna-ecn d.ixe - ~

sment fo the impact fo scientif c or any other type of evid nc .

 Fe n y, Dil and Weis' (1983) study fo rob ery and burgla y ar est in

San Diego and Jacksonvil e found evid nce to eb the most importan

factor ni predict ng convi t . Of evid nce factors, aw i t n e s iden-

tif cation fo the d f n a t was mosthe importan vari ble in explain-

ing convict on for San Diego rob eri swhile vict m-w nes problems

wer most importan ni Jacksonvil e. Unco perativen s of t h ev i c t m

and confes ion yb the def nda t wer the most importan factors in

explain g burgla y convi t s. Thoug achiev ng hai g h lev of

explan tion fo case outc me, Fe n y te a1 employed 0 1-09 factors

ni

t h e i rm u l t i p e r e g s i o n a n l y s e , l e a d i n g .to c o n s i d e r a b l ec o l i n e a r i t y

among their indep nde t varibles.

In sum, we have lit e agre m nt about the importance of evid nce,

and know lit e about the importance of various kinds fo evid nce for

the d e c i s o n t o se k ro ac ept a .aelp What weight do prosecutors and

def nse at orneys as ign to various kinds fo evid nce in the plea nego-

tiations proces ? Are thes "weights based upon their own values about

evid nce ro their pe c ptions about how j u r o ws u l d l i k e l y evalu te

such evid nce?

tI saw' earlie noted tha the r o l e of evid nce has at least be n

clearly established by the lega profes ion for the trial proces.
tI

si to be the prima y considerat on. But how importan si t h e considera-

tion of the facts (i.e., the evid nc ) fo a c se? Kalven a n d Zeisel

(196, ni their landm rk study fo jury behavior, con lude tha most
(about 75%) j u r i e s in crim nal case fol w the videnc pres nted, and

reach verdicts ident cal to those of law-tr ined judges (i.e., consi t-

-- -
tne
-.---
with the .)Tcnediv Wher juries depart from the videnc , the

- -

cause si like y to be s y m p a t h y for particular types fo def nda ts,

 ralupo nu swal (e.g., ,)gnilbmag ro a feil b taht eht

tnemhsi up

debircse p yb wal si ot er v s secnatsmucri eht rof fo eht

deg l a

. e s n f o e s t hu B "serut aped" -- ylaus hciw tli tnad ef d rawot

ycnei l -- are serut aped ,tah suj ro snoitpecx m:rf laren g a

nret ap fo yruj roivaheb tah si de iug yb noitared snoc fo

eht

.ecn dive

More seiduts nec r fo yruj roivaheb have eht no desucof

-pecx "

"snoit -- eht elor lagel-artxe aht ro srotcaf yraitned v o play ni

.stcidrev 'sro uj enO are fo yduts has ne b eht seduti a and

-kcab

dnuorg scit retcar hc fo sevl smehtsro uj (e.g., dnasl iM Bohan,

;0891 Adler, 1973). ehT stcef fo ,noitacude and race, g redn g

fo

eht no r uj stcidrev have ne b tsom ,derolpx yltneuq rf tub

eht

era stlu er far morf .evisulcno Women skcalb dna

ne b semit ovah

dnuof ebot ylthgi s s el yleki ot tcivnoc selam naht and whites,

tub

eht rehti n era secn r f id egral m o r f t n e s i ro c study ot study,

ron someti, morf esn f o en ot epyt rehtona ni eht same .yduts In

sum, st eg u hcraes elba i v tah ecn div si n i t a r o p sm i

-ret d

gni m lairt emoctu sa eht lagel dluow ytinum oc epoh ti would .eb
teY

nev know e her elt i tuoba eht evital r ecnatropmi

tner f id o

sepyt fo .ecnedive tsroF ' s (1977) noitag sevni fo and felony suoire

ronaem dsi st er a ni ,notg ihsaW D.C. dnuof tah police certain

-ca

seit v dna fosepyt ecn div esa rcni eht do hilek a fo

.noitc vnoc

Thes sroivaheb :edulcni owt gnitacol ro more se ntiw ot eht crime,

gnikam s t e r ap m o r nihtiw( 24 sruoh fo nois m c eht fo eht

)esnef o

dna gnitacol elbignat .ecn dive netfo syenrot a esn f D beliv

tah

j ru or syludE-e ri% )xegdu-3dna( ~ e d - b y ~ e - r ~ - t e ~ ~ o ~ f

f orens; --
p -

st i ne c -- ynomitse whic eht defns ylra ucit p sle f -l i

 equip ed to chal enge (Kef, .)8791 Eyewitnes testimony si al eg d to

eb either inv cible or more easily destroyed than any other type of

evid nce. tuB an empir cal as es ment of the weight tha juro s as ign

to various types
.. evidence fo evidence has not be n conducted.

The role of evidence ta each of the many disposit on points of case

proces ing si gen ral y unspecif ed and unk ow . The relative impact of

dif er nt types of evidence si al tub unexplor d. tI si the inte of

this res arch to clarify the contribution of scientif cand other types

fo evidence ta t h em a n y s t a g e s of case proces ing.

Types of Evidenc : A Breakdown

The particular inter s of this res arch is the impact of scien-

tif c or forensic evid nce. We define this as evidence an lyzed by a

laboratory (including such evidence as fingerp ints, blo d, seminal

fluid, hair, glas ,

etc.).

A second type of evidence com only as ociated with, but distinct

from, forensic evidence si "physicalt' or "tangible" evidence -- e.g.,

stolen pro e ty, articles of clothing, .cte What distinguishes this

from forensic evidence si the absence of a laboratory an lysi and an

exp rt prepared to interp t and testify to the scientif c result .

Stolen pro e ty, or clothing, typical y si used to as ociate the def nd-

ant with the crime by means of size, name tags, other marks of iden-

tif cation, .cte The util ty of "tangible" evidence is strik ng.

Ac ording to Fors t )24:7 91( :

When-ta g-ible- videnc ~such-as tol-en pro e ty-~an d - ---

weapons, is recover d by the police, the number of

convictions per 100 ar est was 06 perc nt higher for

rob eries, 25 perc nt higher for other violent crimes,

and 63 perc nt higher forno violent property crimes.

 Fe n y te a1 )15 :3891( f o u nw de a p o n s w e r r e c o v r e d as evid nce in

about half of the rob ery arest. Recov red stolen pro e ty was

av ilab e in about one-quart fo ar est for both rob ery and burgla y.

Cars (licens plate numbers ro vehicle descript ons) wer av ilab e

ni

about %02 fo rob ery ar est tub les than %01 fo burgla y arest.

Def nda t's clothing was av ilab e as evid nce in about %51-0 fo rob-

beri s and t e n d e to increas conviction rates. Clothing evid nce was

not a f ctor in burgla y prosecuti n . Thes various forms of tangible

evid nce were of only marginal s i g n i f c a n c e in predict ng convi t .

Other types fo evid nce are clearly dist nc from physical

-ive

denc. Thes :edulcni (1)~he tes imony or sta em n fo ar esting

police of icers, eht)2( tes imony ro sta em nt of a complain t, (3)

ey witnes identif cations, eht)4( sta em nts fo ac omplices (turned

sta e' evidnc), ( 5 ) the sta em nts or tes imony fo f a m i l ya n d friends

of def nda t and vict m, and (6)confesi ro alib s yb the def n a t.

nI na an lysi of the frequ ncy fo such evid nce in trials, Kalven and

Zeis l )34-2 1:6 91( found certain types fo evid nce (e.g., police

tes imony) virtual y always pres nted, tub the frequency of other types

of e v i d e n c e d pend t upon the type of .esac Eyewitnes , for example,

com only testif ed ni murde trials ,)%4 ( tub ra ely in r a p e trials

(4%). A complain g witnes almost alw ys ap e r d ni rape and as ult

trials %79( and 94%, resp ctiv ly), tub seldom in drug trials
.)%71(

Confes ions wer frequ nt in murde trials ,1x34( tub les so in other

case. Evidence from ac omplices w a s not uncom on in burgla y trials

(24%) , tub ra e in other case.

- - - - -----
- - - --- ---- - - -
 Forensic Evidence

Given its physical and someti smathematic l basi , scient fic

evid nce si thoug to be i n t r s i c a l ym o r e r e l i a b e t h a n other forms

fo evid nce, such as ey witn s a c o u n t s and sta em nts t a k e n from

def n a ts. Scient fic evid nc first ap e r d in courts fo law in this

country in the arly part of the twentieth century, fol owed by an

increasinglywide ac eptance fo physical evid nce as a means for esolv-

gni lega disput. Many jurist , including Suprem Court Justice

Arthu Goldberg, played importan roles in this dev lopm nt:

W e have learn d the les on of history, ancie t and modern,

tha a sy tem fo crim nal law enforcem nt whic comes to

dep nd no the "confes i " wil , in the long run, eb les

reliab e and more subject to abuse than a sy tem which

dep nds on extrins c evid nce indep nde tly secur d through

skil fu invest ga ion. Escobed v. Il ino s, 378

U.S.
478, 4 8 )4691( .
tI si the r al, tangible q u a l i t y of physical evid nce, c o u p l e dw i t h

the precis on and ac uracy fo t hm e a s u r e m n t s p e r f o m e d on ,ti tha

gives ti the w ig t ti has come to com and in court.

This si evid nce tha does not forget. It si not

absent because human witnes .era tI si factu l

evidnc. Physical evid nce can ot be wrong;

ti
can ot perju e itself; ti can ot be whol y absent.

Only its interp ta ion can .r e Only human failure

t o find ,ti s t u d ya n d understand ,ti can dim n sh

its value ,kri&

.)4:3591

Physical evid nc , ti si said, si not subject to po r ey sight, imper-

fect me ory or the traum as ociated w i t h a crim nal act which compr -

mise the reliab lity fo sta em nts from the victim ro witnes t oa

~
~--

.emirc Just as our society has grown increasingly dep nde t on adv nce-

ments ni science and technol gy t o s p e d com unicat ons, proces inform-

10
ation, contr l disea , and def n our nation, our judic al proces has

becom more reliant upon sophist ca ed tes and measurem nts to

elucidate the videnc as ociated with crim nal

.stca

More and more, the solution fo major crime w l hinge

u p o n t h e discovery fo( physical evid nc ) ta crime

scen s and sub equ nt scient fic labor t y an lysi

fo laten f i n g e r p i n t sw ,e a p o n s , fo tprin s, hairs,

fibers, blo d a n d sim lar traces (Presidnt' Crime

Com is on,
.)15:7691

Scient fic evid nce si also aw rde special consideration because

fo the presum d imparti l ty and objectiv y fo the forensic exp rt who

examines and interp ts the evidnc. Forensic science codes of ethics

require exp rts to remain neutral and to take an o p a r t i s a n p o s i t o n

with resp ct to the interp ta ion of their find gs and to as ume, as

their'primary charge, the education fo the trie s of fact (AFS Code

fo

Ethics, .)4891 In contras to he advocates ni a j u d i c a l contes ,

whose forem st aim si "win g the cas," the scient 's goal si the

"pursit fo tru h" through the ap licat on fo the s c i e n t i f mce t h o d

(Cur y, 1965 :5) .

The D velopment fo F o r e n s i c Labor t ies

Begin g in about 1930 and ext ndi g to the late 1960's, forensic

s e r v i c e s expande slowly tub steadily in this country. Forensic labor-

tories often times wer established in a city ro sta e after a major

crime fo violenc went unsolved, ro in the aftermath of an inqu ry into

-- -- - - ---

police mishandli g of an investiga on (Fong, .)9691 sA such, most

early crime labor t ies c a m e into existenc indep nde tly f r o m one

another and ot as a part fo a co rdinated sy tem enso , .t le a

.)0791

Criteria adopted for hir ng person el, procedur s used in examin g

evid nce andmeasure taken to as ure quality contr l wer uniq e to

each labor t y. This explains, in l am re g s u e , t h e l a c k fo consi t-

ency among the natio 's crime labor t ies in terms of stand r s, pro-

cedur s and the quality of result reported (pet rson te ,.la

.)8791

Although about one hundred crime labor t ies wer in existenc in the

United Sta es ni 1967 (Joseph, 1 9 6 8 , t h en u m b r r a p i d l y e x p a n d e

ot(

about 30) in the d ca e from 1970 to .0891 This was largely the r sult

of four factors:

oT h e increas ni the rate fo drug abuse in t h eU n i t e d Sta es

and the influx of drugs and narcotics requir ng identif cation

into crime labor t ies.

o U.S. Suprem Court decis on curbing police investiga on and

inter ogation practi es, c o u p l ewdi t h special crime panels cal ing

upon the police and the entire crim nal justice sy tem to

becom more profes ional and scient fic in their ef orts to

contr l crime.

o A r a p i d l y ris ng rate fo violent crime in the natio's urban

are s, begin g in tmhied 1 9 6 0 s a n d ext ndi g wel into

the 1970s.

o The creation fo the Law Enforcem nt As i tance Admin stration

a n d t h e a v i l a b i l t y of mil ions fo dol ars fo fed ral funds to

sta e and loca governm ts to expand exist ng and to build new

facil t es.

Despite fed ral fundi g, the e x p a n s i o n fo forensic labor t ies

proce de withou national direction or planig. The n wly formed

labor t ies, as wel as the older facil t es, c o n t i n u e d t o s u f e r f om

lack fo co rdination, t h e a b s e n c e of uniform standards and procedur s to

guide the an lysi and interp eta ion fo evid nc , and the no existence

- -- - --
---
of man gem nt repo ting s y t e m s to permit theas ment of the f ects

of scientif c evid nce in solving crimes, prosecuting of end rs and

insuring a high q u a l i t y of justice.

12
 The stand r for admis on of scient fic evid nce ni court has

changed lit e over the tsap sixty years. Frye v. United Sta es 293 Fed

10 3 )3291( whic requires a technique ot" h a v e gained gen ral ac ept-

ance in t h ep a r t i c u l a r field ni whic it belongs" befor ti may be

admit ed in a court fo law si stil the landm rk ruling. Excluding

s c i e n t i f c techniques from judic al proce dings whic di not met this

II
gen ral ' ecnatpec a standard was the courts way fo insuring tha nei-

ther the j u d i c a rnyo lay juro s would be exposed to scient fic result

w-
hich may - be unreliab .
..

Ther are ind cations, howev r, tha courts have begun ot relax the

c o n s e r v a t i v e crite a of the Frye tes and to permit the introduction fo

more novel scient fic techniques (Gian el , 1980). With few exc ptions

(the polygraph and voice spectrog aph notably among them) most courts

have come to ac ept new techniques as they have be n dev lop .

-nI

clude her would be the use fo el ctroph resi to char cterize the

gen tic marke s,of blo d and sem n, t h e scan i g el ctron microscope to

an lyze gunshot residue f r o m the hands of su pect d s h o t e r s , or the gas

chromat graph-mas spectromet r to det rmine the place of orig n

fo

dangerous drugs or na c ti s. In reality, then, the courts pres nt few

bar ie s to the introduction fo most forms of physical evid nce and

an lytical t e s t i n ga d h a v e c o m e to exp ct s c i e n t i f ca n l y s e of evi-

d e n c e i n c e r t a i n of ens (murde, r a p e a n d arson for exampl ) which

furthe prom tes its usage.

 Empir cal Res arch into t h eU i l z a t i o n fo Scient fic Evidenc

Given the increas in the number of crime labor t ies, cient fic

person el and sophist ca ed techniques for examin g evid nc , one might

exp ct tha a sizeable perc ntage fo case would invol e forensic evi-

denc . nI ad it on, the favor with w ich forensic an lyse and

testimony are rec ived by judic al fact- inders should prom te its

util za on. Surveys fo judges and at orneys, for example, find over-

whelming sup ort for the increas d use of scien in the court m.

Schroed r (197) con ludes :

Of those law person using the forensic scien s, over 90%

desir g r e a t e r util zation fo the forensic s ienc s person l

because of their superio credib lity in lega decis on

making (Schroed , 197 : )xi .

Sim lar y, a study of labor t y, police and ju ic al of ic als in the

s t a e of New York found overwh lming )%78( sup ort for t h e i n c r e a s ud e

of physical evid nce in the fut re (pet rson te ,.la .)7 91 None-

thel s , evalu tions of actu l rates fo usage fo scientif c evid nce

find its pres nce to be a rather u n c o m o n oc ur enc ni the judic al

proces.

Parke's )3691( survey of forensic labor t ies rev aled few r than

%1 of the to al crim nal violations ta the loca lev to rec ive a

forensic laboratory examin t o . Later studies (e.g. Joseph, 1968;

Benso , 1970; Rogers, 1970;Parke and Pet rson, 1972; Parke and Gur-

gin, ,)2791 have rev aled sim lar result . As Benso )0791( staed:

-
The-i~n~o~~e~ntTf-tI~~i~
lab= try iiT€het to a 1
body fo crime has be n smoi n s c u l e as to preclude

judgment as ot the impact of crim nalist c on the

crim nal justice sy tem

.)72:0791(
 Of the relatively few case tha rec ive forensic examin t on

Parker and Gurgin (1972) con lude tha drug nois .e p charges rec ived

adisprop rtionate amount fo labor t y resources and at en io . Ward's

)0791( national study fo police crim nal investiga on units also found

tha the an lysi fo drug and arcotic evidence had "displace " the

examination fo physical evidence in such crimes as burgla y and rob e y.

We l i k e w i s ek n o w s o m e t h i n g about the frequ ncy fo forensic evid nce

ni various types fo case (Pet rson te ,.la .)4891 tI si more likely to

be av ilable andused in murder, rape, and drug case compared with,

say, burgla y, thef , rob ery or as ult .se ac This is partly due to

conservation fo lim ted laboratory esources for more serious case or

crimes in which (like drugs) the laboratoryevidence si indispensible to

obtain g a convict on. But this si also substantial ya function

fo

the (lesr) like ho d of forensic evidence being av ilable in such

crimes as thef , wher ther si les interaction betwe n the of end r

and his vict m ro sur o ndi gs.

Empir cal studies fo the us fo scientif cevidence in court are

very few inumber. Kalven and Zeis l'

)6 91(

study, The American Jury, include a brief overview fo the use of exp rt

witnes es at trial. No exp rts ap eared in about thre -quarte s of

crim nal trials studiedand in only 3% fo trials di both side employ

an exprt. Prosecutors used exp rts four times a often as def nse

at orneys .
Further indication of the lim ted use fo forensic evid nce in court

was found in Laser' )7691( survey fo capit l case before the

-1

reliance on confes ions and witnes testimony ta the expense fo scien-

tif c evid nc .

51
 We think our study show an incredible gal in the

employment fo modern methods. The prosecution

does use scient fic evid nce in upwards fo %52 fo al

case , but ti reli s almost exclusively on thre forms

fo such evid nc , t h en w s t of which si 04 years

:dlo firea ms identif cation (so-caled

,)"scit l ab"
blo d typing, and fingerp int comparison (~as ers,

.)Ol3:769l

Ac es by t h eD f e n s e

Another conti u ng problem con er ing the use and ef cts fo foren-

sic evidence is its av ilabil ty to the def ns . Most police crime

labor t ies do not permit thean lysi of evid nce on behalf fo the

def n a t. U s u a l y o n l y t h r o u g hd i s c o v e r y moti ns filed with the court

si the def nda t al owed t o r e v i e w the result of labor t y tes ing

fo

evid nce prio to trial. One noted crim nal def nse at orney has com-

mented tha being located within a police organiz t on leads the crime

labor t y:

to ignore ro rel gate as ins g if cant any evid nce

tha si not consi ten with the police theory fo a

particular supect' invol em nt in t h e crime under

investiga on. (Kef,

.)74:8791

Inasmuch as most (>go%) crim nal def ndants are ind gent, ti si a

ra e oc asion tha a crim nal def nse lawyer wil employ the s rvices of

ap r i v a t e f o r e n s i c exprt. W h i l e t h e lack fo fina ci l resources stands

sa the primary reason scientif c exp rts fail to ap e r in behalf of

crim nal def nda ts, the scarcity of indep nde t forensic examiners and

the discomf rt at orneys e x p e r i e n c ew h n d e a l i n g with scientist are

ad it onal reasons (Deck r, 1982). sA a result, def nse at orneys wil

us al y eith r at emp t oh a v e the videnc sup res ed ta a pre-tial

hearing on il egal s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r eo faulty chain of custody

 grounds, or t r y t od r a w s l i t ae t n i o as pos ible to the

scient fic findings yb con eding the result and arguin its pres nce

can be explained ni lawfu

.syaw

T h eE f e c t i v e n s fo Scient fic Evidenc in the Judic al System

Althoug the consideration of forensic an lyse may be relatively

uncom n in t h e judic al sy tem, when such an lyse are p sent, they

may ex rt a trem ndous impact o n case dispo t n. For insta ce, many

practi oners and lega scholars share the beli f tha scientif c evi-

denc has am j o r influenc on the decis on fo lay juro s (Imwinkel-

Scientif c evid nce impres yal juro s. They tend to

as ume ti si more ac urate and objective than lay

tes imony. A juro who thinks fo scientif c evid nce

visualizes instruments cap ble fo am zingly precis

measurem nt, of findings ar ived ta yb dispa ionate

scientif c tes. In short, in t h em i n d of the typical

lay juro , a scientif c witnes has a special aur of

credib l ty.

Ther is, howev r, relatively lit e mpir cal evalu tion fo the ef cts

fo forensic evidnc.

C a l s p a nC o r p o r a t i o n (Rosenthal and Travnicek, 1974), under an LEA

grant, at empted to d e t r m i n e t h e f ectiven s fo crim nalist c opera-

tions ta the police and court levs. Due to dispar te and no -

s y t e m a t i c reco dke ping practi es ni the study site , Calspan was

unable to f o r m u l am t en y , empir cal y based conlusi. They found no

d o c u m e n t a i o nw h i c h ind cated tha prosecutors reli d upon the result

--
o fxiQnti f-iCteS "Ingi -t i-e-h r-de ch 1-on-t ~-charge~
US peet-s-o ,-r -o f r-tha - t

mat er, to dism charges once filed. In the case studie , a forensic

 scient s nev r ap e r d befor aGrand Jury; howev r, labor t y

result may have be n relay d verbal y through an investiga or

ro

prosecutor. Calspan di find, thoug , tha physical evidence was

-co

casional y instrumental in inducing uilty pleas from def nda ts and

tha tangible evidence se med to eb a factor in securing pleas to the

orig nal as op osed to a reduc charge. Howev r, since the res archers

wer unable to contr l for other evidence ro extra-l g factors in the

case review d, the r sult must eb view d cautio sly.

tA trial, Calspan found scientif c evid nce pres nted in about half

fo the case wher physical e v i d e n c he a d be n examined ni the labo-

rato y. The physical evid nce was repo ted yb( the prosecutor) to be

decis ve in about %04 fo thes trials and cor ob rative fo other evi-

denc in another .%04 Def nse exp rt witnes es rebut ed the scientif c

evidence pres nted by t h ep r o s e c u t i o n ni about 10% fo the case wher

the evidence was actual y used ni court.

Fe ney te a1 (1983) found tha fingerp int evidencewas matched

with the def nda t in about %1 fo rob ery and 2% fo burgla y ar est .

Al burglaries with fingerp int matches (4) resulted in convictions in

both jurisdictions studie .

Pet rson, Mihajlovic and Gil iland )4891( rec ntly published a

s t u d y i nw h i c h the objective was to det rmine the role of forensic

science services ni police investiga ons. Dat wer gather d from a

random sample of about 2,70 police files in four jurisd ctions. Case

wer stratif ed ac ording to the pres nce/absenc of labor t y an lyzed

evid nc . While this study focused on the ef cts of physical evidence

--
on police investigations, res arche s tracked case to their final

disposit on inthe courts. They recorde the in t al and final charges

 f i l e d a g i n s t t h ed f e n d a n t , the mode of disposit on of the case (plea,

trial, dism al), fi the case resulted ni a conviction ro acquit al,

and the sentence given the def n a t.

Some of the rel vant find gs fo this res arch

:era

o Of ense with scientif cal y an lyzed evid nce had hig er rates

of police clear nce and ar est than of ens withou such evid nc .

o Ar est with scientif cal yan lyzed evid nce led

ot
higher rates of prosecutorial chargin than case withou such

evid nc .

o Case with physical evid nce wer more often dispo ed

ta
trial than case withou such evidnc. Also, as the specif city

fo the labor t y findings increas d (link g an of end r with a

crime) the greater was the likeliho d the case would go to rial.

o Higher rates of dism al oc ur ed for case wher labor t y

results dis ociated the of enderwith the scen ro vict m.

o Higher rates of conviction resulted ni case with labor t y

an lyzed evid nce; fo thes case , the hig est rates

fo conviction resulted wher labor t y tes wer defin tive

and linked the def nda t with the crime.

Saks and Van Duizend )3891( sought to describe the problems whic

arise ta the trial lev when lit gators at emp to use scientif c and

techni al evid nc . Based upon a review fo the litera u e, sel cted

case studies and various other intervi ws, the authors prop sed pos ible

solutions and avenu s fo fut re res a ch. Although admit edly a qual-

ita ive and, in many respects, subjective review of case and practi es

employed, the res arch pres nt the at itudes and opin o s fo various

court actors about the value of forensic evid nce ni case sa they

progres from the pre-tial lev, through the trial, and into the

ap e l stage.

Sum ary

In con lusion ther are dif er nt types fo evid nce whic can be

operational y defin d, and type fo evidence si cor elat d, rathe

strongly, with type of case .)emirc( The circumstances of crimes, and

the el m nts ne de to prove crimes .yrav As a consequ nce, so od the

types fo evid nce tha are like y to be av ilable and tha may be pres-

ent d ni court. Ac ordingly, any an lysi fo the role fo evid nce

ni

crim nal adju icat on must be sensit ve to thes dif er nc s.

The litera u e in the forensic scien s si char cterized by thre

central
:sem ht

o Given its s c i e n t i f c , o b j e c t i v eq u a l i t e s , most crim nal

justice authorit es have cal ed for g eat r reliance on

physical evid nce and expansion of forensic facil t es.

o Rates of usage fo forensic evid nce have b en shown to be

very min al, tub with the tripl ng fo crime laboratory

r e s o u r c e sn a t i o n a l y t h e r si reason tobeli ve tha thes

rates have increasd.

o Very few studies have be n published which describe the

ef cts fo scientif c evidence at the court lev ; the reason

for this absenc se m to be due princpal y to the infrequ ncy

with whic this evid nce si used and res arch design whic

fail to distinguish forensic testimony and repo ts from other

forms fo evid nc .

 - RETPAHC I1

GOALS AND METHODS

Project Goals

Just how importan si scientif c evidence in the charging, det r-

mination of guilt or in ocen , and sentencing stages of the judic al

proces ? As theprec ding chapter indicates, we know very lit e about

the use and ef cts of scientif c evidence on the prosecution and

-ed

fense of crim nal case. Studies of physical and scientif c evidence

have det rmined tha ti si ra ely av ilable; howev r, thes studies have

focused on police investigation practi es. No such i n q u i r e sh a v e b e n

published which examined pat erns of usage at the court lev. Con-

sequently, a primary focus of the pres nt study si a det rmination

fo

the rate of util zation of forensic evidence in court andan as e m nt

of whether tha rate has, as impl ed by the crim nal justice litera u e,

increased in rec nt years. What kinds of physical evidence are rou-

tinely examined in forensic laboratories and for which types of prose-

cuted of ense ? In order to provide a more complet understanding of

the use of forensic evid nce, the cur ent report alsopres nts the

results of a surveyof the natio 's crime labor t ies. tI details

informationabout their esources, polic es and scope of operations.

The f ect of forensic evidence ap ears to be to increase rates

fo

1 ar est, charging and convict on. Its ef ct on mode of disposit on

(e.g., plea .sv trial) and sentencing si unclear. The secondaryim

fo

this study, ther fo e, is to ascertain the relative impact of forensic

1 evid nce,

denc , on
and ther lative ef ects

charging,
_ ---
disposit on and
fo

sentencing
various
A
types

decis on .
-
of forensic

In
--

examin g

evi- ----

I
12
 the r lative ef ct fo forensic evid nce we consider the opin o s
fo

j u r o s and prosecut .

Method logy

, U t i l z a t i o n of Forensic Evidence

In orde to as e the rate of util zation of forensic evid nc ,

and to det rmine whet r tha r a t eh a s increas d in rec nt years, we

required information about t h ep r s e n c e or absence of forensic evid nce

in a random sample fo al crim nal case charged in sev ral years, in

sev ral jurisd ctions. We sel cted the years 1975, 1 9 7a 8n d 198. Dat

f r o m t h e sy a r s avoide el ctions, wer stil fairly ac es ible and yet

wer likely to have reach d a final disposit on befor we began dat

col ection in
.3891

We sel cted the six jurisdistions :fo Peoria, Il ino s; Chicago,

Il ino s; Kansa City, Mis ouri; Oakl nd, California; and New Haven a d

Litchfield, Con ecti u . The first f o u r of thes jurisdictions wer

partic pants i na earlie s t u d y of police use fo forensic evid nce

(Pet rson , t. el a .)4891 Continuation of our r e s a r c h in the four

orig nal sites enabled us to examine t h e proces fo scientif c evid nce

u t i l z a t i o n f r o m the point at which evidence si g a t h e r d by the police

ta the crime scen , t h r o u g h its a n l y s i i n t h e labor t y, ot its

ultimate usage in t h e courts. The Con ecti u j u r i s d i c t i o n sw e r ad e

t oa c h i e v g r e a t e r g e o r a p h i c a l , organizational and caseload divers ty.

Thes sites pan the c o n t i n u m f r o mv e r y large jurisdictions

(Chicago) to smal cit es and towns (Peoria and Litchfeld). Thes

jurisd ctions also refl ct at enda t dif er nces ni crime rates, numbers

fo av ilab e law enforcem nt person l and volume fo caseflow throug

their resp ctive court sy tem . The labor t ies sel cted also rep-

sent dif er nt organiz t onal struc res for the deliv ry of scient fic

servic: munic pal (Chicago and okl); regional (~ansas City and

~eoria ;)notr M( and a centralized sta e facil ty (~on ecti u ). Ge-

ographical y, the site are distr buted throug t the west rn, central

plains and east rn sectors of the counry. Resource (grant) lim ta ons

preclude the a d i t o n fo any more sites for study. e S( Chapter I1

for ad it onal information about each study jurisdcton.)

In-sum, we beli ve thes jurisd ctions provide an c urate por-

tray l of rates of usage fo forensic evid nce a ros America.

teY

becaus they dif er on ms ao n y dimensio , the cause of dif er nces in

rates fo util zation can ot alw ys be precis ly identf. Some

-er

aders may wish tha we had chosen "matched site," tha dif er d on ly

,eno or two, known dimens o . Matched cit es, unfortuna ely, do not

exist. And making a choi e fo the one or two char cterist c to match

locations in the absence fo information about the importan det rmina ts

fo forensic evid nce util zation, was an impos ibly dif cult decison.

Sel cting a broad range fo cit es se med the best res arch strategy for

answering the question fo whet r rates fo forensic evid nce util zation

dif erunder any cir umstances ro increas d from 5791 to 1981, in any

kind of locae.

For information about the frequ ncy of util zation fo forensic

evid nce ni the court adjudication of a case, we might have gather d

information from either court or prosecutorial .selif Prosecutor case

-____--- -
-
files, howev r, rep sent the s i n g lm eo s t complet source of information

 about evid nce used in a prosecution, soci -demographic char cterist c -

fo the d fenda t and "sy tem proces ingt char cterist c fo the case;

i.e., man er fo dispo it on, conviction sta us and sent c . For the

pur ose fo this tudy we made the as umption tha fi scientif c informa-

tion wer used in a prosecution, the case file should contain a copy
fo

pertin forensic l a b o r a t o r y repo t (s) . We recognize tha such an

as umption may lead to the incor ect c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of case in which a

prosecutor h a s had verbal contac with a laboratory examiner, tub a

labor t y repo t was nev r produce . tI si our understandi g, thoug ,

tha s u c h a n oc ur enc si ra e; particularly in case wher the scien-

tif c result are pivotal in decid ng case outc me.

Further information about the util zation of forensic evidence was

provide by a survey fo the natio 's crime labor t ies. Among the

items survey d wer types of physical e v i d e n c e r o u t i n e l y examined and

the f r e q u e n cwyi t h w i c h s c i e n t i s t t e s t i f e d ta trial. This lat er

is ue was explored in greater depth in thre of our s t u d y s i t e sw h e r

reco ds permit ed su to det rmine which case resulting i n trial

-ni

c l u d e t h ea p e a r n c e of a crime laboratory exp rt witnes .

In ad it on, ta the conclusion of a sample fo 13 jury trials in

Chicago, ind vi ual j u r o sw e r r e q u e s t e d t o c mplet a brief question-

naire as es ing the various types of evid nce pres nted in the trial.

Questions focused on types of evid nce introduce during t h e trial, and

on the credib lity and c o m p r e h n s i b l i t y o fv a r i o u s forms of evid nce

and testimony presntd. Thes d a t provide a special focus on trial

case , prosecutions most l i k e l y t or e c i v e the time, resources and

--
---- -en e r-g-i e s-o £a - t o b a4
-1-mi-r to si-eh

 Relative Impact fo Forensic Evidence

T h e s e c o n md a j o r f o c u s of the grant was the as e m nt fo the

relative impact of forensic evid nc . We sought t oa s c e r t a i n the impact

fo various types fo evid ntiary' nd n o e v i d e n t i a r y case char cteristics

in a v riety of .syaw First, we conducted intervi ws ith prosecuting

a n d ef nse at orneys and crime laboratory personl. Dat wer

gather d with resp ct to chargin , plea n e g o t i a t i o n s and problems

-sa

sociated with pres nti g or interp ting such evid nce ta jury and bench

trials.

Second, we col ect d etailed information about the a t r i b u t e

s f o

the case examined in our 198 sample. Detailed information about al

variet s of evid nce -- forensic, tangible, ey witnes , complain t,

police, ac omplices, .cte -- was col e t d. Thes dat permit us to

as es sy tematical y the impact of various types of evidence o n case

tha result in pleas and case tha result in trials.

Third, we admin ster d hypothe ical case to prosecutors in

Chicago. Hypothe ical case w re dev loped for sev ral dif er nt crimes

(atemp murde , rape, rob ery, burgla y) and strength of the various

types of evid nce was varied in a factorial design for each crime
.epyt

Prosecutors wer asked to indcate: the like y charges filed, fi ther

wer suf ic ent evid nce to prove proba le cause, like y mode of

disposit on (plea, trial, or dismal), l i k e l y case outcome (convi-

tion, acquitl), and like y sentence fi the d fenda t wer convited.

Table 2.1 s u m a r i z e s t hv ea r i o u s t y p e s fo dat col ect d and the stage

-0-r-st age s-oLc c-lanim r as e-ad judi cat i e-rd a-no ss e _ y - b - d ,at d-fo epyLhca
 Table 2.1 Types of Dat Col ect d*

S t a g e fo Adju icat on

He t hod

Charging Plea Trial Sent ce

Def nda t-Based

Case F i l eA n a l y s i -- X X X

Intervi ws with

Key Actors X X X X

Hypothetical

Case Scenarios X X X X

Jury Exit

Question aires -- -- X --

") X ( Indicates dat wer c o l e c t e d tha ad res ed particular stage

of adju ic t on.

(--I I n d i c a t e sd a t do not ad res this stage of adju ic t on. .

Report Organization

The remainder of ther po t si div de into t h e fol wing chapters:

Chapter I1 Study S i t eD s c r i p t i o n s

A brief overview of the crime labor t ies and court sy tems

in each of the six study jurisdictions si provide. Particular t ention

is paid to the relationship b e t w e n t h ec r i m e labor t y and prosecut'

 Chapter VI Rates of Util zation fo Forensit Evidenc

Chapter VI si devot d t oa r e v i e w of the rates fo usage fo various

forms fo forensic evid nce in the years 1975, 1978, and

.189

The types fo evid nce as ociated with particular of ense categories and

the r sult of tes ing of dif er nt forms fo forensic evid nce are

reviwd.

Chapter V Survey of the Nation's Crim nalist c Labor t ies

The r sult from a national survey fo crime labor t ies

si

discu ed, whic helps to place into contex the find gs of rates of

u t i l z a t i o n of evid nce in each of the s t u d y locatins.

Chapter IV The rial At orney's Perspective

This chapter p es nt the r e s u l t s of intervi ws ith prosecutors

and ef nse at orneys ni study jurisdictions about the importance of

forensic evid nce in case proces ing decison.

Chapter VI Juro Perceptions of Evidence

This chapter sent the r sult of question aires complet d by

juro s in Chicago, Ilinos. Cit zens discharged from

jury service wer asked to evalu te t h e videnc they had heard and

how ti had af ect d the d e c i s o n t h e y rend.

Chapter VI Conviction

This chapter xamines the dispo it ons of def nda ts charged

with felonies in the study site in the year 1981. tI identif es

t h o s e videntiary and extra-lg f a c t o r sw h i c h a p e r

- --

to influenc case outc me.

 Chapter IX C h a r g eR d u c t i o n a n d S e n t e n c e

T h e an lysi fo case file dat pres nted ni the pr vious chapter

si ext nde ot include a d i s c u s i o n of those factors as ociated with

charge reduction, whet r convicted d e f n d a n t s are sentenced to a

prison term, and the length of time d e f n d a n t s are t ob e incar e t d.

Chapter X Prosecutors' As e m nt fo H y p o t h e t i c a l Case

Dat about the relative importance fo various types fo evid nce

gen rated via a set of hypothe ical case admin ster d to prosecutors

ni the Co k County )LI( Stae's At orney's of ice are pres nt d.

Chapter XI Sum ary and Policy Implicat ons

This chapter sum arizes the major find gs of t h e r search

and at empts to integrate the r sult obtained t h r o u g h t e proj ct's

various dat g a t h e r i n g ap ro ches.

 CHAPTER I1

STUDY SITE DESCRIPT ONS

Introduction

This chapter p ovides background information ab tuo the o c bur t

sy tems and crime labor t ies ni each of the six studie jurisd ct on .

The basic struc re of the crim nal courts a n d the flow of case throug

thejudic al sy tem in each jurisdictionsi describ . T h e crime scen

i n v e s t i g a o n a d c r i m e l a b o r t uy n i t s in the various study locati ns

are also discu ed, including their physical and human resources, exam-

inat on cap bil t es and caselo d . nI ad it on, for each jurisd ction

the relationship betw n the crime labor t y and the court sy tem
si

described, with a focus on labor t y-prosecutor relations and factors

which influenc decis on to examine evid nce and introduce scient fic

find gs in courts fo
.wal

Chicago/C k County

The crim nal justice sy tem in Chicago si best char cteriz d as a

megasy t m. The sy tem encompas e al of Co k County (po ulati n

2.5

,)noil m includ g both the c i t y of Chicago (wher %56 of the county's

serious crimes ocur) and many fo its sub r . Co k County had 17,8

felony case fil ngs in 198, refl cting an increm ntal increas in

fil ngs from earli years. Ther a r e ap roximately 175 judges ni the

cir u t, 50 of whom hear crim nal case ; the s'eta s atorney's of ice

has about 04 at orneys, 571 of whom prosecut crim nal .se ac Ther

a r e ap roximately 150 public def nders a n du m e r o u s private def nse

29
ohw syenrot a tnes rpe stneilc with charged .semirc Table S 3.1
rof

an noitaremu fo laren g rof scit re a hc metsy laic duj

eht

suoirav study
.setis

Struce fo eht Judicary

n Courts

deif nu sah sion l I truoc sytem, nier hw eht gnis ecorp fo

la

liv c lanim rc d a se ac sruc o withn eno adminstrve

eht- inu

tiucr .struoc er hT are 21 stiucr .sion l Ini County k

-moc

se irp eritn o .tiucri e hnti W ko C County er ht iuc C are

lanim rc and snoi v d liv c fo t r u o ce h t and dezila c ps nev

-iv dbus

.snois niht W eht lanim rc divson fo eht tiucr for cut,

,elpmax

er ht are ronaem dsi courts, scito ran courts, yranim le p hearing

courts, ynolefar g and courts, ,struoc edn f o taep r among

.srehto

judges Circt tuohg r Ilinos era by selctd nasitr p

-le

,noitce ni whic detanimo setadi n c yb rieht ytrap run ni

laren g eht

rednu noitcel rieht ytrap .noitangised also re Ther

tnacif g s

rebmun fo asocite segduj ohw not are ,detc l tub apointed yb

tiucr

judges a morf lo p fo .stnacilp a Thes etaicos judges

yliram p

ronaem dsi f ats

.struoc

Once ,detc l ko C Circut ony segduJ asigned r by eht Chief

egduJ fo eht tiucr ot ralucit p a .nois vid er hT has a ne b

-dnet

ency ot asign new segduj ot lanim rc eht .nois v d ,s el htr v N

eht

evital r f ok c a l laic duj revon ut and eht tneuq rf i rotain fo

-iduj

stnem gi a l ic ta eht emit fo siht resach derusni lanim rc bench

with elbar disnoc

.erunet
 elbaT
3.1
lanim rC ecitsuJ
scits retcar hC metsyS
fo ydutS snoitc dsiruJ
)1891(

NOITCIDSIRUJ

ogacihC airoeP naK ytiC dnalk O

ko C airoeP noskcaJ ademalA -hctiL weN
ETUBIRT A ytnuoC ytnuoC ytnuoC ytnuoC dleif nevaH

ytnuoC .poP 5 . 2 lim 0 ,9 1 634,0 1.1 9 6 7 , 6 5l 1i m 73 ,167

se aC ynoleF

deliF

srotucesorP

cilbuP
sredn feD

.segduJ
lareneg(

)noitcidsiruj

truoC metsyS deif nU d e i f d r e n iU t - o w T owT

owT
)cric/cos A( )puS/inu~( (PtAB) (AB)

lapicn rP gn rhC milerP dnarG milerP milerP dnarG

dnarG
dohteM rH gni yruJ rH g n i rH gni yruJ
yruJ
lairT etaR (% f o

)snoit sopsiD

yruJ

hcneB

9c se aC delif ni traP A struoC .ylno

 low
Casef

toN al felony ar est yb the police result in t h e fil ng

fo

charges. I n the mid-1970s, the C o k C o u n t y Sta e's At orney's Of ice

i n t r o d u c e d a sy tem fo felony c a s e scre ni g ("felony reviw") to der-

mine whether and ta what lev -- felony ro misdem anor -- felony ar-

est should be charged. T h e r sult has be n am u c h g r e a t e r emphasi

no

"trial suf ic ency" rather than "lega suf ic en y" i n t h e chargin

decis on (Jacoby, .)2891 Stil , case charged by the prosecutor must

s u r v i e a prelim nary hearing, which typical y si not waived. Case may

a l s o proce d by way fo grand jury ind ctmen , rather than a prosecut '

fil ng of an information, tub only a minor ty of case actual y do

.os

Polit cal case , conspiracy or white-col ar crimes, other hig ly vis ble

case , or in some insta ces, case previously dism ed at the prelim -

nary hearing, might proce d yb ind ctme .

Once case survi e thes scre ni g stages, a plea or trial (only

oc asional y, dism al) wil result. G u i l t y pleas, as in most juris-

dictions, qc ount for the bulk of the dispo it ons, t h o u g h t er a e

also a substantial perc ntage fo bench trials. T h e j u r y t r i a l r a t eh s

t y p i c a l yh o v e r d ta or below %5 of felony case fil ngs an u l y. In

raw numbers, thoug , t h e r are typical y 50 or more jury trials per

year, ap roximately 10 per crim nal court judge. Cor elatively, ther

are 0 0,3 or more bench trials an u l y, or about 06 per crim nal court

judge. The sub tan i l acquit al rate at bench trials (about

50%)

sug est tha thes trials a r en o t mer ly "slow pleas" (Mather,

.)4791
--

Upon convict on, def nda ts are s e n t e n c e dw i t h i n the guidel n s of

rec nt Il inois legislation provid ng for quasi-det rminate sent ci g.

32

 If sent to prison, def ndants are sentenced to a fixedterm of years,

but within rather broad s t a u t o r yg u i d e l i n e s s u c h sa 03-6 years for ape

or 51-4 years for residential burgla y. Pres ntence investiga ons are

,com on and can ot be waived unles the sentence si agre d to yb al

parties in the case and ap roved by the judge.

Crime Scen and Crime Laboratory Services

The Chicago Police Departmen 's Crim nalistics Laboratory has

r e s p o n s i b l i t yf o r examin g physical evidencegather d from vict ms,

su pects and crime scen s orig nating ni the city of Chicago. This

laboratory si the second oldest crime labor t y in the nation having

be n established in 0391 in the aftermath of the .tS Valenti 's Day

Mas cre. Organizational y, the crime labor t y si l o c a t e dw i t h i n the

police departmen 's Bureau of Technical Services, tub for years prio to

this h a d b e n l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h eB u r e a u of Investiga on. Chicago's

si

the only laboratory within the jurisdictions tudied tha is ad-

min ster d by a no forensical y trained police of ic al.

Physical evidence normal y si routed into the crime laboratory via

a me ber of Chicago's 59 of icer crime scen .tinu roF( al practi al

pur ose , laboratory examiners nev r gather evidence from the

).dleif

This function si housed (organiz t onal y) within the crime labor t y

and si div de into two princ pal div s on : the vidence technic an

unit, which provides coverage to property crime scen s and les serious

crimes throughout the six major geographical areas of the city; and a
03

-meb er;centlaii-zed-mn sT1dSh-hci -ht -tin u-e-1-i-b the ev id e n ~ e and c s en s of

su pic ous and violent deaths and other major crimes.

3
 The evid nce technic an unit si also respon ible for a r a n g e of

other miscel aneous, techni al actives: phot graphing the scen s

fo

traf ic ac idents and lineups; admin stering breath lyzer tes to

su pected drunk drive s in distr c police sta ions; transporting rape

kits and other evid nce from hospitals and the morgue to the crime

labor t y. This unit responds to the scen s fo about 40, 0 crime

scen s in a typical year.

The labor t y itself rec ived about 26,0 case for examin t on

in 198 (se Table 3.2). Dep ndi g upon t h e types fo materials

gather d, the evid nce si chan el d to ne ro more fo the five princ pal

div s on within the laborty: microan lysi , firea ms, to lmarks,

questioned documents, and chemistry. Ther are ap roximately 50 scien-

tif c examiners ni the labor t y. Drugs consit ute about 40% of the

labor t y's caseload, with another 20% fo case direct d to the

microan lysi section whic handles al blo d, s e m na d t r a c e evid nce

examin t ons. The firea ms section examined about 2,0 fired evid nce

c a s e a n d c h e c k e da n ad it onal 18,0 confiscated weapons in

.189

E v i d e n c e Prio ties

toN al evid nce col ect d from the f i e l da n submit ed to the

crime labor t y si examind. Gen ral y, evid nce submis ions have

increas d s u b s t a n t i a l y in rec nt years, but withou a com ensurate

increase in labor t y resouc. As a result, some examinations of

evidence wil be def r ed, only parti l y complet d, and in some case

nev r complet d dep ndi g upon the type fo evid nce submit ed and its

centrality to the pendi g investiga on or prosecuti n. On t h e other

34
 elbaT
3.2

yrota b L emirC

scit retcar hC etiS ydutS

NOITC DSIRUJ

airoeP *TC
ETUBIR A ogacihC )notroM( naK ytiC dnalk O nedir M

raeY dehsilbatsE 0391 2791 8391 4 91

1941
devr S noitc dsiruJ inuM c noigeR noigeR cinuM
eta S
)oghC( )etatS( )cinuM( )dnalkaO(
)lrtnC(
noitalup P devr S 3.0 lim 0 0 , 0 20 , 10 6 , 7 4 1 3 3.1
lim

laun A tegduB $1.3 lim AN 0 0,108$ 0 0,123$ 0.1$

lim

/tegduB atip C
92.$
Law tnem crofnE
d e v r Ss e i c n g A 23 1

traP I semirC in 613,371 680,91 763,201 876,4

328,281
devr S .siruJ )ytic( (~eoria )ASM (K.C. )ASMS )ytic(
)etats(
traP I
/semirC
0 0,0 1 .poP devr S
738,5
yrota b L
srenimaxE 1
traP I Crimes/

baL renimaxE
026,61
latoT baL daoles C
145,1-
lanosreP
%83
ytrepo P
%26
sgurD 0%;':
:>

IWD %0
rehtO %0
latoT /se aC
baL renimaxE - 140

cnu~'" t i 2sa-d eno t a t e - I d e n t i f i - c a t i m B u r e a u tnu i 1 gnirud ,97 1 hci w
scit lanim rc emit se ac det imbus er w ot eht FBI
.yrotarobal

criugs denimaxe by etar pes eta s

.ycnega
 hand, ther are sections fo the Chicago labor t y wher practi al y al

submis ions rec ive a promt examination - namely firearms, to lmarks,

questioned documents and drugs.

For drug case , the an lysi must eb complet d in time for the

prelim nary hearing so tha thed fendant may be charged. tI is ni the

microan lysi section wher a sub tan i l percentage fo submis ionsgo

unexamined. About %03 fo burglary and rob ery evidence si not an lyzed

nor si 50% fo evidence col ect d from as ult . Although al rape kit

evidence rec ives a prelim nary evaluation and as e m nt, only about 5%

of case are ful y examined and repo t d. On the other hand, more than

%59 fo biol gical/trace evid nce from homic deldeath investiga ons

rec ives an examin t o .1

Al other factors being equal, evidence coming into a section

fo

the labor t y si examined in the order in which ti is submit ed. Ther

are many other factors whichmodify this princ ple, such as the
-es

riousnes of the particular of ens , the av ilabil ty of su pectsand

standards with which the e v i d e n c em a y be compared, the perishabil ty

fo

the evid nce, the scient s ' own as es ment fo the evidence and its

potential for yielding usef l information, and emands ap lied by the

court prosecut . This lat er f a c t omre i t s elabor ti n.

Judic al/Prosecutor Priorit es

In rec nt years, the Chicago laboratory has found ti increasingly

dif icult to ke p up with the influx of evidence submit ed for evalu -

tion to the point wher a growing percentage fo case are not evalu ted

unles a prosecutor request .ti Ideal y, evidence should be evaluated

3 6

 sa an investigation proce ds so tha a det c ive may util ze such

scientif c result ni making decis on to purs e ro ar est certain

su pects. As evid nce becomes backlog ed in the labor t y, great r

time lapse betw n the submis ion of the videnc and sti an lysi ,

and reports are pre a d princ pal y for the ben fit of the prosecutor

and the court. As backlog ed evid nce conti ues to mount, prosecutors

may find thems lves withou a labor t y repo t sa they ap roach a trial

date; In such ase ti wil be the prosecutor who specif cal y requ st

an anlysi. tI si estima ed tha as many as thre -qua t rs of the

request for an lyse made to the microan lysi section of the Chicago

crime l a b o r a t o r ya e made by prosecut .

As i tan Sta e's At orneys ni Co k County may cho se not ot requ-

tse a n a n l y s i o f e v i d e n c ew h r e ti si like y the case wil result in a

plea of guilty ro wher they believ thean lysi unimportan to their

case. Sucha lat er decis on consti u es a risk, of course, tub one

whichAs istant Sta e's At orneys fe l required to i n v o k eg i v e n t h e

pres of case and the resource lim ta ions of the laborty. The

decis on to i n t r o d u c e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c ea n d t e s t i m o n y ni a case has

ad it onal implications in tha ti us al y means the of icer who col-

lect d the evidence must be cal ed to testify as wel. This creat s

ad ed scheduling problems and can serve to slow down the move nt fo a

case.

Evidenc such as drugs have a much faster turn around timesince

the an lysi must be complet d in time for the prelim nary hearing.

E v e nw i t h drugs, howev r, labor t y supervisors can court docket

--- -- -
-
she ts to se which case are scheduled for court action and, con-

sequ ntly, which should rec ive top pior ty. Withou a laboratory

 repo t av ilable ni drug prosecutions, the judge wil like y dism the

.esac

Com unication of Results

L a b o r a t o r y repo ts are transmit ed by police departmen courier to

case investiga ors and sta e' at orneys. Reports wil be made

a v i l a b l e t od e f n s e counsel upon fil ng fo the ap ro iate discovery

moti n w i t h t h e court. Examiners contac with def nse at orneys

si

min al and si us al y regulated by the Sta e's At orneys Ofice. The

crime labor t y does of er special train g se ions for public def n -

ers which are wel rec ived. Nev rthel s , most public def nders view

the laboratory as being aligned with the prosecution and examiners not

ful y ac es ibl .

Lab examiners t e s t i f y ta trials infrequ ntly, which si a furthe

consequence of the high volume of case faced both yb forensic scien-

tis a n d prosecutors (se Chapter VI). In most pleas and trials, then,

the labor t y repo t serves a the an lyst' "tes imony" wher the

repo t si read into the r cord by the sta e' at orney and si stipulated

yb the d fense at orney. Wher examiners are asked to tes ify, they

wil us al y consult with an as i tan stae' at orney ,roi p t o trial

to review the videnc and labor t y r e s u l t s and the line of question-

ing to be fol wed.

Overal , then, the relationship betwe n the Chicago crime labo-

rato y and the crim nal courts si p r i n c i p a l y defin d by contac s

-eb

t w e nt h e lab and the Sta e's At orney's Ofice. Sta e's at orneys

s p e c i a l i z n g i n t h ep r o s e c u t i o n of particular of ens types (drugs,

homic des, ).cte may have quite dif er nt perc ptions fo forensic

evidence and the crime l a b o r a t o r yd e p n d i n g upon the s e c t i wo n t h whic

they ave regular conta. Overal , the labor t y gen ral y enjoys a

go d reputa ion among sta e's at orneys, although some are quick
ot

point out tha result may not be "stae-ofhr, given the long

standing resource lim ta ions fo the labor t y.

Peoria County

The crim nal justice sy tem in Peoria County, Il inois si a segm nt

of the five-county, Tenth Judic al Circuit in central Il ino s. With a

po ulation fo ap roximately 20 , 0 Peoria County si by far the busie t

loca court in the predomina tly ru al cir u t a n dh o u s e its

-da

min strative of ice. Ther wer 1, 76 felony case handled in Peoria

County courts in 198 (Se Table 3.1). Ther are 15 ful -time judges in

Peoria County and a to al of 21 throughout the ntire cir u t. The

stae' at orney's of ice has six lawyers serving as felony as i tan s.

The stae' at orney oc asional y tries case , us al y those invol ing

major crimes. Six as istant (part-ime) public def nders are as igned

to the felony courts.

Structure of t h eC o u r t s and Judic ary

TheT nth Judic alCircuit si one of 12 cir u ts in the stae'

unif ed court sy tem. Tazew l , Stark, Marsh l and Putnam counties

six fo the judges are el cted as "resid nt" judges from their home

39

 counties -- two from Peoria County and one from each fo the o r four

counties. The remain g cir u t judges are el cted on a cir u twide

basi. Resid nt j u d g e sa r e not required ot tis in their home counties

and judges in the Tenth Circu t are often rota ed betw n court m

as ignme ts in dif er nt counties. The majority of the judges sit

ni

fedria County. The 1 As ociate Circu t judges,who have ful consti u-

tional jurisdiction, are sel cted yb the ful Circu t judges from a
tsil

of ap lic nts. While cir u t judges are lect d for a six-year term,

ret ntion fo as ociate judges si det rmined yb the Circu t judges on a

quadren ial basi.

Caseflow

Not al felony ar est yb police result in formal charges. A

vigor us scre ni g proces inst u ed yb the sta e' at orney's fo ice

cul s out case with weak evid nce and other shortc mings. The remain-

gni case are pas ed to a grand jury, whic considers the evid nce and

deci s whether ot ind ct a def n a t. Peoria County use the grand

jury in nearly al felony case, ra ely reso ting to prelim nary hear-

.sgni Prosecutors fe l the we kly grand jury se ions a r e m oa r e

-fe

fic ent way to det rmine whic case to bind over to felony court.

Case tha survi e the scre ni g proces are tes on the trial

docket of one of the two felony courts. S o m we i l eb dism ed by the

sta e, others wil be reduc mt io s d e m a n o r charges but more than half

fo the ind ctmen s wil result in felony convi t s. The majority

fo

PeoriaCounty prosecutors have w r i t e ng u i d e l i n e s to make the agre m nts

 more uniform. Judges ra elypartic pate ni plea negotia ons in Peoria

County, exc pt to ratify agre m nts negotiated by the prosecutor and

def nse at orney. Thre -qua t rs of the trials are befor juries. In

--
198 , about two- hirds of the felonyconvictions resulted ni prison or

jail sentences for the convicted def n a ts. As n o t e d i n t h eC o k

County description, convicted ef ndants are sent ced using a quasi-

det rminate sy tem rec ntly enacted by the Il ino s Sta e Legislature.

Historical y, delays have be n a problem in Il ino s courts, and

Peoria County si no exc ption. Howev r, increas d computerization and

an emphasi on reducing the backlog fo case have considerably sped up

theadjudication proces.

Crime Scen and Crime Laboratory Services

The PeoriaPolice Departmen has a crime scen unit )USC( of six

of icers (including o n e sergant), and si located within the

departmen 's gen ral services div s on. This unit was expande and

upgrade in the delivery of crime scen services ni the .s'0791 The

crime scen unit investigated the scen s fo about 0 7,2 crimes ni 198 ,

most of which wer burgla ies.

I na d i t o n t o c r i m e s c e nw o r k , the CSU also takes and dev lops

phot graphs of crime scen s and ac idents; clas if es and files fin-

gerp ints; searches thes files and compares fingerp int cards with

laten prints dev loped ta crime scen s; and transports physical evi-

dence to the Il ino s Bureau of Scientif c Services Laboratory ni Mor-

___
- ~y~ no-e3
- h t - s - i a i r o e oP - n ~ - 1 - o n - i - 1 - 1 - , juiisdsdiZtS6Fi~
he s t udy ni ch whi

the CSU of icers conduct theirown searches of departmental fingerp int

.selif

14
 The Morton labor t y si about ten miles to the east fo Peoria nd

in 198 employ d a to al fo eight scientif c examiners e s( Table

3.2).

This regional labor t y si part of the large Sta e of Il ino s Scien-

tif c Services System comprised fo eight forensic labor t ies distr b-

uted through t t h e sta. The sy tem consi t of sev n operational

labs with the eight a group fo co rdinators who staf the train g and

ap licat ons labor t y. T h eM o r t o n labor t y has cap bil ties in drug

chemistry, blo dstains, hairs and fibers, firea ms and to lmarks, arson

ac el rants, paint an lysi , laten fingerp ints and the polygraph (Se

Table 1. 1 ni t h eA p n d i x for detailed capbiltes). The labor t y

examined a to al fo 832, case in ,1891 with the Peoria Police Depart-

*
ment submit ing 31 of thes .se ac Dangerous drugs co&tiue more

than sixty perc nt of the crime labor t y's caselod.

Evidence Priorit es

Practical y al physical evidence submit ed yb the Peoria Police

Departmen to the Morton labor t y rec ives an examin t o . This si a

r e f l e c t i o n fo two key factors: moderate caseload lev s ni the labo-

rato y and evid nce scre ni g procedur s fol owed by the police

departmn's crime scen .tinu Caseloads within the Morton labor t y,

although by no means min al, are les than thenational average

e s(

Chapter )V .
The crime scen unit fo the Peoria Police Departmen si a smal
6(
,)rebm wel -trained and highly motivated group of evid nce techni-

c i ans . nI comparison to other - ~ x c x e - t - m u - a - i - r o e - P - e h - t cr- % t i n u ~ n e _ c - s - e m i

cise greater discretion ta scen s of crimes in sel cting evid nce for

 pres rvation and wil scre n the vidence ag in before ti is submit ed

to the Morton laboratory for an lysi . As a consequence, Morton

laboratory scientist examine a higher prop rtion of submit ed evidence

than in other jurisdictions (Pet rson et

. ,) 2 l1 a : 4 8 9 1

The crime scen unit also col ects and identif es al fingerp ints

orig nating in Peoriacity case , and is responsible for al crimescene

phot graphs. Fingerp ints consti ute a major portion of the evidence

and phot s routinely used in Peoria County prosecutions which is a

reflection of their satisfaction with the impact of thes items. The

Morton facil ty is general y able to respond to evidence on a "first

come, first served" basi , ke ping in mind the other gen ral priority

considerations noted earli . The laboratory is ues writ en guidelines

to al submit ing law enforcem nt agencies concerni g how evidence si to

be col ected, packaged andmarked, and condit ons which have to be met

for an analysisbe in t a ed. For example, a c r i m es c e n e blo dstain

wil not be an lyzed unles blo d samples arealso submit ed from vic-

tims and su pects.

Prosecutor Priorit es

As a result of the Morton laboratory's timelines in examin g

evidence and sup lying results, prosecutors are seldom faced with having

to request examinations .'sevl m ht Stil , the rapid pace of justice in

P e o r i aC o u n t y (30 days elapsed t i m eb t w e n first court a p e a r a n c ea n d

trial date) k e p sp r e s u r e on the lab for a quick turnaround. Continu-

---
de aPnse Ti-temo~ tra-s ecma- to ac om odate the laboratory in completing

their examinations of evidence.

 T h eA s i t a n Sta e's At orneys expr s confidence ni the results

eman ting from the labor t y and satisfaction tha al ap ropriate

test have be n conducted. The posit ve perc ptions of As i tan

Sta e's At orneys in Peoria si further but res ed by their go d rela-

tionships w i t h t h eP o r i a Police Departmen 's Crime Scen Unit whic , in

ad it onto their crime scen work, regularly testify to their fin-

gerp int identif cations, physical comparisons fo evidence and crime

scen phot graphs.

Com unication fo Results

Crime laboratory repo ts are directed to the ap ropriate

-ni

vestigator in charge of the case and the Sta e's At orneys Of ice.

Prosecutors seldom exp ct ro rely on scientif c repo ts at the point

fo

charging exc pt for case fo drug pos e ion. The smal size fo the

crime laboratory and sta e' at orneys' staf s prom tes personalized

at ention and im nishment fo tensionswhich are sometimes found in

large jurisd ctions.

P e o r i aC o u n t y case which result ni trial are distinguishable in

that a high fraction of them involve testimony of a laboratory exp rt

(se Chapter .)Iv Face-to f contacts betwe n the prosecutor and the

lab scient s are the norm befor trial during which timethe

scient 's findings are discus ed and the prosecutor's line

fo

questioni g is revi w d.

Local public def nders also expres confidence in the objectiv ty

andaceu~a o-yc f-re s u i - t w f ht-mor roM-e t on-1-xb-0-r atmr ~ ~ T h ~ S T l i Z l i ev

the As i tan Stae's At orneys wil not purposeful y mislead the court

44

 htiw tceps r ot eht ytirgetni fo eht cisnerof .ecnedive

esn f D

syenrot a troper gnivah dna e rf s ec a nepo ot rotucesorp files,

gnidulcni la gni atrep strope ot . e c n d i vl ea c i s y h p yehT

evah osla

s ec a o t s uc id ylnepo iw oh srenimaxe yrota b l

.stluser ieht

noskcaJ/ytiC sa n K County,
iruos iM

sa n K City, sdaerpsi uos iM straprevo of e rht ,seitnuoc

hcae

with sti truoc tiucr nwo .snois vid ehT ytirojam (63%) fo ynolef
dna

ronaem dsi gnita giro se ac ni ytiC sa n K era delif ni

noskcaJ

,ytnuoC htiw eht gnieb gni amer delif ni et alP (17%) dna Clay
-nuoC

.seit The se ac delpmas rof eht yduts morf detc les r w eht
noskcaJ

ytnuoC s'rotuce P s'ecif O 3,452 sgnil f ynolef .1891ni ylraeN

80%

fo eht delif se ac yb noskcaJ ytnuoC n i etanig ro srotucesorp

sa n K

.ytiC era ehT yletamixorp a 81 laren g noitc ds ruj lairt

truoc

segduj ni noskcaJ ,ytnuoC syenrot a tcir s dtna si a 53 dna

-tsi a 31

tna cilbup
.sredn fed

erutc S fo eht
struoC

iruos iM si de iv d otni 44 laic duJ .stcirtsiD ytnuoC noskcaJ

si
. a

eht ht61 . t c i r s D i lr au o cs i d uM J a sh t r u o cd e r i t - o w t
metsy

desopm c fo etaicos tiucr dna tiucr .struoc

tiucr etaicos A

struoc noitc ds ruj evah revo seinolef roi p ot eht gnil f fo

eht

n o i t a m r o f sn 'i r o t u c e s o r p (i.e., yranim lerp .)sret am er hT era

thgie

snoi v d fo eht etaicos A tiucr C truoC ni

-dnet ahci ytnuoC- 0 skcaJ

ot yranim lerp .sgniraeh tiucr C ehT truoC si otnide vid 19

-iv d

sion, fo hci w evif lanim rc aeh

.se ac
 Mis ouri has a "merit ret n io " sy tem for ap ointing and

retain g cir u t court judges. Judges are ap ointed by the Governo ,

upon recom endations by a Judic al Panel. P e r i o d i c a l y t h ve o t r s

within each judic al distr c vote to continue ro end a judge's tenur.

Caseflow

The courts fo Jackson County suf er from the same lack oE resources

as the courts ni most metrop litan are s. The ef ic ent use fo thes

lim ted resources consequ ntly requires careful evaluation of each

ar est case. The number fo case tha qualify for the fil ng of sta e

charges si reduced by a Pre-tial Div sion and Suspende Imposit on of

Sent ce prog am. Non-vilet first of end rs, who qualify, have ar est

reco ds purged upon suc es ful completion fo the progam.

T h e J a c k s o n C u n t y Prosecut ' Of ice was pres nted with 6,504

ar est in .3891 nI 2,30 case , the fil ng fo charges was declined,

resulting in a toal fo 4,20 case .delif Of tha to al, 1,506 wer

bound over for trial by an As ociate Circu t Court Judge. Ther wer

1g 9r 8a n d jury ind ctme s. Of the 407,1 case bound over for trial,

36 case wer dism ed yb the sta e and 1 , 0 1 g7 u i l t y pleas wer

-ne

terd. Ther was a to al fo 163 trials, of which 10 resulted in guilty

verdicts .
The Mis ouri Legislature pas ed into law ni 197 (taking ef ct

.naJ 1, 197) a revis d crim nal code. The code div es felonies into

four clas e C,B A( and D) , a n md i s e m a n o r s i n t o h r e clas e (A,B and

C) . The provis on on sentencing in the code (Chapters )165-75 set out

-

the pos ible penalties tha can be imposed for each clas of ofens.

 s alC A seinolef are elbahsinup yb 03- 1 sraey ro tnem osirpmefil

ni

eht nois v D fo ;snoitcer C s alC B felonis, 51-5 years ni

eta s

s alC ;nosirp C, 7-2 s alC dna ;sraey ,D 5-2

.sraey

yrevE ecn t s eht ot nois v D fo

a sedulcni s o tcer C
nosirp mret and a lanoit dnoc relas .mret Thus,
nosrep a
decn t s ot a 1 0 raey mret s elnu , iw delorap earli,

sraey 7 evr s nda eb neht no esalr anoitd c for 3

.sraey
ehT snoitc r e revo l rtnoc dna nosrep a no
lanoit d c
esa l r eht ra emas r o sf a nosrep a on .elorap The
tluser
si er ht a si n o e r o m 'temit alf" and yrev person
gnimoc
f to u eht Divson f o snoitcer C l iw eb rednu
.nois vrepus

edoc hT seif c p cisab niatrec crimes, n yi r a l g u b s h c u s

eht

dnoces degr, hci w neht emoc b yralg ub ni eht tsrif degr fi

niatrec

secnatsmucrign tav rg a era .tnes rp yralg uB ni e rg d noces ht

si

a s alC y n Co l e f while yralg ub ni eht tsrif e rg d si a Clas B

.ynolef

yreb oR ni eht second e rg d si y r e b l o i h w y n B o l e sf a C ni

eht

tsrif e rg d si a Clas A
.ynolef

en cS mirC and
secivr S scit lan m rC

ehT nois v d scit lan m rc fo eht Kans ytiC Polidepartment

si

e r h t o n di e v i d yrami p :stinu e m i r c, h p a g y l o scen

noitag sevni

dna lanoiger .yrota b l emirc The 22 srecif o ni eht emirc scen

tinu

evr s lapicn rp e rht e saer cihpargoe fo eht

des corp dna ytic

4,768 emirc sen cs in .1891 The

eht s zi ahpme tn raped cilop

evitag s ni elor fo es ht ni ,srec f o aditon ot rieht routine

ecn dive noitcel .seit l bisnop er staed Th laog fo tinu eht

o st i

etagi s vn eht sen c fo la rojam .semirc tcir s D lortap

srecif o

search forlatent fingerprints-at-thescenes-of-r~ut-ine-pr-oper-t~y--~-t-imes. -

 The regional crim nalist c labor t y, located in Indep c ,

Mis ouri from its inception in 1973 to 1983, has rec ntly moved to a

downt , Kans City locatin. I n a d i t o n to provid ng scient fic

services to he Kans City Police Departmen , the labor t y also

examines evid nce for about 08 sur ounding police agenci s on a fe

.si ab The l a b o r t yh a s 1 3 s c i e n t i f c examin rs. The prima y scien-

tif c sections fo the crime labor t y :era trace videnc and

serol gy; firea ms and to lmarks; and chemistry/instrumenta ion. The

labor t y proces d a to al fo 6,90 case in 198 , about 80% fo whic

wer submit ed by t h eK a n s City Police Departm n . Drugs and nar-

coti s composed about %52 of this to al caseload, which si low yb .

national stand r . More than 40% fo its caseload fal s in no part I

crime categories whic si exc ptional y hig. The Kans City Regional

Laboratory use a c a s me n a g e m n t information sy tem which permits the

labor t y ot sum arize and an lyze caseload trends to a great r extn

than most crime labor t ies in the natio .

Evidenc Priorit es

More than 90% fo homic de, drug and narcoti , and fraud/counterf it

case submit ed to the l a b o r a t o ray e examind. Fifty perc nt or more

of ag rav ted as ults, arson and rapes are examin d, tub slightly

few r than half of the rob e i s. Only about one-quart of the evi-

dence in burgla ies rec ives an examin t o .

T h eK a n s a C i t y Regional Laboratory use a sy tem in which the

- -

various section supervisors eview incoming evidnc. This ind v ual

then contac s a s u p e r v i s n gd e t c t i v e to det rmine what prio ty the

 investiga ve div sion has given the case. In this way, the as e m nt

fo the evid nce yb the xaminer concerni g what si scientif cal y

pos ible si integrated with the knowledge the investigator has about the

.esac The scient s and investiga or t h e an g r e u p o n prio ties as ig-

ned to case and the examiner revi ws the videnc in tha orde.

The laboratory also is ue guidelines to police investiga ors and

prosecutors concerni g other r e q u i r e m n t sw h i c h must eb satisfied befor

they embark on a series of examin t ons. For example, in the crimes

fo

burgla y, rob eryand ag rav ted as ult, ther must eb su pects iden-

tif ed befor theywil at emp an examin t o . Such a requirem nt

si

of marginal rel vance to prosecutors since their caseloadvirtual y

alw ys invol es crimes with su pects or def nda ts.

Prosecutor Priorit es

Given the labor t y's policy of at empting to ke p its exam-

inat ons cur ent with ongoing investigations of crimes, result are

gen ral y av ilable to pr secutors as t h e yp r e p a r e case . Decis ons

ot

charge def ndants wil be def r ed in certain crimes -- drugs ,)syawl (

arsons, rapes -- until result are rec ived from the .bal Prosecutors

in Jackson Countysta e they are inclined to wait to ent r into plea

negotiations with def ndants until they rec ive the result of labo-

ratory tes ing.

Orig nal charges are frequently reduced in the course of plea

bargain g in Jackson County and the failure to find evidence to as-

-- -e taic s thguoil-sk-emirc-eht-htkw-tnadnsfea ht by prosecut3 eb a

factor ni such decis on .

 Com unication fo Results

Staf ing pat erns in both the prosecutor's of ice and the crime

laboratory are stable and the relationship betw n scientif c and lega

staf s si profes ional, yet friendly. Train g seminars are of er d

periodical y by l a b o r a t o r ys t a f for at orneys which further enha ces

prosecut ' comf rt with ind vi ual examiners and knowledge fo the

evidence itself. In prepar tion for a rec nt major murder prosecution

which hinged almost exclusively on physical evid nce, scientif c staf

and prosecutors enga ed in am o c k trial before a "jury fo private

cit zens to register their eactions to the av ilable evid nc .

Reports is ued by the crime laboratory are directed to the rel vant

police investigator and the prosecutor in charge of the case. Prosecu-

tors may also tel phone laboratory examiners to learn fo prelim nary

findings before a case repo t si prepared or to resolve other question .

Unlike some other prosecutor of ices in our study, the Jackson County

of ice wil customarily mail copies fo laboratory reports directly to

def nse at orneys without wait ng for a court .red o Prosecutors wil

us al y confer with exp rts ni person before trial unles they are

famil ar with the scientist and the vidence from previous prosecutions.

Only a smal percentage (<lo%) of case go to trial in Jackson County,

and fo thes only about one in ten (se Chapter )IV have an exp rt

tes ify.

 Oakl nd/~ me a ,ytnuoC

ainrofilaC

ytnuoC adem lA si detau is ni ,ainrofilaC rtneC no eht tsae

edis

fo ocsi narF naS .yaB sah ytnuoC adem lA a f o n italupo

yletamix rp a

2.1 noil m .elpoep dnalk O si eht tsegral ytic ni

htiw ,ytnuoc eht

tuoba 0 , 53 dna ,sno rep si elbisnop er rof tsomla flah eht

814,90

ot de rope semirc xedni ademalA ytnuoC seicn ga tnem crofne wal in

.1891 The ytic fo dnalk O si elbisnop er rof na nev rehgi

(60%)

egatnecr p fo semirc tsniag sno rep e h t n id e t m o c

.ytnuoc

ehT adem lA ni metsy truoc sah ytnuoC htruofeht tsegral emulov

fo

se ac ni .eta seht Dat etacidn taht 6,45

er w stnialpmoc ynolef

htiw delif adem lA eht ytnuoC nsit r u o C l a p i c n u M 189 fo hci w

864,3

er w der f ot eht roi epuS .truoC ehT sah ytnuoc 31

segduj gnit s

ni sti roi epuS truoC nois v D dna 13 lapic num ,segduj 14 fo mohw
era

dengis a ot eht . t c i r t sn io dm e i P - d n a l k O The tcir s D

s'yenrot A

syolpme cif o 31 dna syenrot a gnitucesorp eht cilbuP

s'redn feD

ecif o sah a f ats fo 98

.syenrot a

erutc S fo the.Cours

ainrof l C syolpme a der it-owt metsy fo lapic num dna

roi epus

.struoc ehT s t r u o lc a p i n u m are struoc fo lanig ro noitc ds ruj

rof

ronaem dsi sret am dna sgniraeh yranim lerp tcudnoc on ynolef

.sret am

Felony are s l a i r t detcudnoc ylno yb eht ,struoc roi epus hguo tla in

emos secnats i a lapic num truoc yam tpec a a aelp fo ytliug ot

a
-- --
egrahc ynolef -eht iw truoc-roirepus i - n v o l v ~ ~ l ~
ot tne x eht
fo

gniyf trec eht aelp dna eht

,ecn t s

51
 Althoug munic pal court judges are el ct d, partisan polit cs are

ordina ly not a deci ng factor. Superior court judges are ap ointed

yb the Governo a n d s e r v e for life unles chal eng d. If chal eng d,

t hmeuys stand for el ction ta the next gen ral el ction. Ap ointments

to the Superio court bench g e n r a l y refl ct the polit cal at itudes of

t h eG o v r n . Subsequ nt chal eng s of conservative j u d g e s are quite

ra e; chal eng s of libera j u d g e sa r e not com n, tub neither are they

altoge h r rae. Nev rthel s , ther si a relative lack of judic al

turnover whic ensure a crim nal bench with considerable tenure and

stabil ty.

Superio court judges rota e betwe n civ l, crim nal, and probate

mat ers, frequ ntly serving in one cap city for sev ral years before

rota ing ot another servic . The majority of the superior court judges

are as igned to hear crim nal maters.

T w o avenu s exist for bring crim nal c h a r g e s ag inst def nda ts

in Alamed County. The les f r e q u e n t l y invoked avenu , l i m t e d to

felonies, si by ind ctme . The Distr c At orney can conven a grand

jury which wil hear tes imony. Upon the return of an ind ctmen , the

c a swei l b e set for trial ni superio court. No prelim nary hearing

wil be held, and thed f nda t wil not have a n op ortunity to cr s -

examine prosecution witnes until the time of trial.

T h em u c h m o r e frequ ntly used avenue si for the Distr c At orney,

- -- -

ta the requ st fo the investiga ng agency, to is ue a crim nal

corn-

plaint. TheDistr c At orney ex rcise d i s c r e t i o n iwnh e t h e r t o is ue

 a ,tnialpmoc anim rc y l t n e u q dr f a eht noiret c si

lairt"

"ycnei f us rehtar " . y c n e i c f ul sa g e l " n a h t Upon eht ecnaus i fo

a

,tnialpmoc a yranim lerp gniraeh si dleh ta eht l ta rp ui oc n m

.lev l

fI eht judge fo eht s e v i l e b t r ul oa cp i n u m tah e m i r ca has ni

tcaf

ne b dna det im oc tah er ht si elba orp esuac ot ev il b tah

eht

tnad ef d sah det im oc it, l iw tnad ef d eht eb dnuob revo for

lairt

roi epus ni .truoc tA emit eh fo eht yranim le p hearing,

-dnef d eht

yam tna enimaxe-s orc se ntiw and tnes rp ecn div ro ynomitse ni
sih

ro reh nwo .flaheb tI si yl autriv draehnu fo rof eht tnad ef

ot

eviaw eht yranim lerp .gniraeh tI si osla for ae quit esn f d eht
ot

e c n d i v te n s r p ta eht emit fo eht yranim le p

.gniraeh

ehT s t r u lo ac p i n u m ni ytnuoC adem lA resolv

flah yletamixorp

fo la seinol f thguorb ,meht rof b yl acipyt ro sla im d v

-cuder

snoit .sronaem dsim ot ,yl anois c O saelp ot seinol f are der tn

tub

es ht case era neht dnuob revo ot eht roi epuS ad m lA Court rof
-rec

noitac fit dna

.gnic etn s

More naht 80% fo eht 3,468 erof b thguorb sgnil f ynolef

eht

roi epuS truoC desop i er w fo hguorht guilty saelp only ad 5 % wer

detaci uj . l a i rt a fo tnecr p ythgiE eht 641 whic case tnew

ot

lairt wer deirt erof b a .yruj e fh Ot 2,759 detcivno st adnef

ni

truoC roi epuS 99% detcivnorw .seinolefo Thus, tnad ef ecno

si r e v do n u b ot s d o te rh u C r o i e p u S fo a charge gnieb decu r ot

a

era onaem dsi

.etomer

stnad ef ,noitc v nopU are decn t s ni with acordne

eht

ainrof l C laneP whic Code sedivorp for gnic et s animret d

dexif"

yb etu a s ni noitr p to eht s en uoir s - fo eht ".esnef o

-----suhT
- _____--- --

mrofinu era secn t hguo tla for ,semirc ekil the metsy alows
daorb
 laic duj .noitercsid roF yralg ub ,elpmaxe e h tn i tsrif
e rged

fo yralgrub( an gnil ewd etibahni esuoh ni eht thgin )emit

is

elbahsinup yb tnem osirpmi roE ,2 4 ro 6 .sraey yralg uB ni eht

dnoces

e rg d si elbahsinup yb tnem osirpmi ni eht ytnuoc t o nl i a j gnide cxe

1

raey nr io eht eta s .nosirp ecn t s rP

n o i t a b o r p e h yt b s t r o p e r

tnem raped era eht

.mron

en cS emirC dna
secivreS scit lanim rC

ehT dnalk O eciloP emirc s'tnem rapeD en cs

noitcnuf noitag sevni

si desab niht w . n o i s v i d l o r t as p' t n e m t r a p e d e h t srecif o evl wT

f ats

t o n e h w d n at i n u s i h t gni maxe emirc ,sen cs era detc pxe ot

mrof ep

laren g lortap .seit vitca neviG eht hgi rebmun fo

semirc xedni

)876,4 ( det im oc ni ,dnalk O en cs emirc eht srecif o ecaf eht

-ivaeh

tse nedrub fo la yduts setis ni smret fo emirc gnir uqer sen cs

-ni

.noitagitsev ehT tnem raped cilop sah on dehsilbup senil d ug sa

ot

snaic nh et hw era ot eb denom us ot emirc sen cs rehto naht

'suoires'

s nef o lacisyhper hw ecn dive si thguoht ot eb

.tnes rp

The dnalk O emirc de nuof ,yrota b l ni ,4 91 si eht tsel ams

of

la etis yduts s t i n e c s e v i fh t w s e i r o t a b l dna two tnirp egnif

.srenimaxe , s k r a m l o td n a s m r a e i F ygol res/ cart yrtsimehc dna

)sgurd(

etu i snoc yramirp eht stinu fo .yrotarobaleht The

yrota b l dna k O

si rehto morf euqin dei uts snoitc dsiruj ni tah cif tneics
len osrep

eta or ylra uger esac seit l bisnop er noitan m xe ot etubirts d

eht

gurd and cito ran .daolkrow The yletamixorp a del nah yrota b l 2,340

-
se ac htiw ,189 ni ---- the-great-major-i-t-y-of-th-esFm beiIg-inthe saer

of ,stnirp egnif sgurd dna

.scitocran

54

seit roi P ecn divE

yrota b l emircdnalk O ehT senimaxe la gurd t n e a dl n

-nif

tnirp eg se ac d e t s u q e r y l a c i f e p s r a y e h tc i w ot ;enimax
tub

siht stne rpe ylno tuoba %06 fo detc psu gurd ecn div dezi s dna
40%

fo eht tne al dev irte yl autc stnirp egnif . d l e i fh t m o r f

ylnO

tuoba %06 fo rehto s c i t l a n i m r cl a e n g dna e v i c e rs a c y g o l r e s

na

.noitanimaxe nehW eht noitcarf fo denimaxe cnediv si der isnoc

yb

,epyt esn f o se w t u o b at h %09 fo sedic moh evi c r an

,noitan m xe

s r e t a u q - e r h dt n a fo .separ l ya l u t r i V eht ecn div

morf det imbus

seiralg ub si denimaxe tub siht si tsomla desirpmoc ylevisu cx

fo

.stnirp egnif

sA ndie t o eht cisneroF trope ydutsreil ae ecn divE and eht Police,

fo se ac eht s e d i c y r o t a b ld n a k O ot ,weiv r noitcarf ylno

fo

ecn dive d tcel oc si yl autc .denimaxe tuobA driht-eno fo eht

suoirav

sepyt fo ecn dive det imbus ot eht si ylan rof yrota b l era
yl autc

.denimaxe sihT is eht fo itar tsewol la ruo yduts seti ,nosret p(

te

,.la 1984:111), dna si yliram p noitcelf r a fo eht detim l

cif tneics

secruoser ni eht dnalk O

.yrotarobal

an depol ved sah dnalk O tic lpxe f ot e s senil d ug

enimr t d ot

eht nevig ytiro p o t .si ylan rof det imbus ecn dive dna se ac
ehT

l iw yrota b l evig pot ytiro p ot tahw era demr t "ycnegr me"

.se ac

es hT se ac edulcni ,se n f o su ires ylra ucitrap esoht with

elbahsirep

,ecn div g n i e b s t c e p s u g n i v l o n is e a c dleh ni

a gnid ep ydotsuc

yrota b l tse (as htiw ,)scitocran er hw se ac dna ecn div si

-nes "
-- --

lait- -to-the-prosecut-ion-of-the-caser'L-Other-"~er~ous'~ pPe~ bnai~rimeS

l iw neht ,ytiro p evi c r ylra ucitrap er hw yrota b l

era stlu er

thguo t ot evah eht laitne op fo gnits a ni na

.noitagitsevni
55
 Decis ons to examine case not fal ing into one of theabove cate-

gories wil be based on the perishabil ty of the evidence and the order

in which the request are rec ived by the laboratory. tI ap ears tha

case label ed "em rgency" by virtue of a request by a prosecutor have

as umed a promine t posit on in the overal decision proces .

Prosecutor Priorit es

The relationship betwe n the district at orney's of ice and the

Oakland crime laboratory is a go d one, based upon stable staf ing

pat erns and years of co perative relations. As sug ested above, a

substantial percentage of examinations in the laboratory are keyed by

request from the district at orney's of ice.

Prosecuting at orneys are sensitive to the resource lim ta ions of

the laboratory andwil first ask an examiner fi useful findings might

likely result from an an lysi b e f o r em a k i n g an of ic al request. Thes

prosecutorial request are also general y confined to cases which ave a

high likeliho d fo resulting in a trial. Were ti not for the extremely

high percentage of felony fil ngs resulting in guilty pleas %58( plus)

the laboratory would be unable to respond t op r o s e c u t i o n case demands.

As ti is, prosecutors areoc asional y crit cal of the "we ks or months"

ti may take to obtain a lab report and are vocal in the ne d for ad ed

resources to be directed toward the laboratory.

 Com unication fo Results

Case repo ts are routinely transmit ed to police investigators and

as i tan distr c at orneys. Since such a smal percentage fo case go

ot trial, the ap ear nce fo examiners in court si not a regular oc ur-

.ecn r Stil , the staf fo the Oakland labor t y has an excel ent

reputa ion among prosecutors who do not hesita e to request experts to

tes ify ni the very serious case which result in trial. The Oakland

labor t y practi es an open policy with resp ct to sharing reports and

information with def nse at orneys and their exp rts. The laboratory

enjoys a go d reputa ion among the def nse bar, which expres es con-

fidence ni the quality fo result and onpartisanship fo examiners.

New HavenILitchfield, Con ecti u

The sta e fo Con ecti u has six counties and thirte n judic al

distr c s. The sta e crim nal courts handle ap roximately 120, 0 case

a year. Ther are 13 sta es at orneys (one for each judic al distrc),

a b o u t 1 5f u l - t i m e deputies and as i tan s, and 15-20 part- ime prose-

cutors. (Stae's at orneys are ap ointed by the judges of the superior

court -- the only sta e ni the unio to do so.) Ther are, excluding

probate court judges, 130 superior court judges ni the sta e. Judges

are ap ointed by gubernatorialnomination and conse t of the legisla-

.erut TheC ief Justice fo the Suprem Court has overal responsib lity

for the judic al departmen ; t h eA d m i n s t r a t o r of the stae' courts

a(

upe s i - r c-ro our-t-j udg e r - ) e p ro r i d - s - t c e t-ly-t opt h e -Ch-i-eef-JWt i c C

 Structure fo the Courts

The crim nal courts fo orig nal jurisdiction i Con ecti u have

be n unif ed into a single lev, known as the superio court. Ther

are a v riety fo div s on , howev r, including juvenil court, and the

so-cal ed "part "A and "part "B courts. T h e dist nc ion betw n part A

and part B courts varies in dif er nt are s fo the sta e, tub si based

upon t h em a x i m u penalty tha can be as e d for the of ense in ques-

tion (expr s ed in terms of years in the sta e .)nosirp Part B courts

are the "lower courts a n d are someti s cal ed "G.A." courts

rof(

"Geographical ~rea"). Part A c o u r t sh a n d l e c a s e which car y hig er

maxi um penalties, and are someti s cal ed "J.D." courts rof( "Judic al

.)"tcir s D The majority of Part B courts have 10 year maximu sentence

cut-of s for t h e i r c a s e ; t w oh a v e 5 years; and a f he aw v 20 years.

The New H a v e n judic al distr c encompas e 31 cit es and towns,

including the C i t y fo New Haven. Twelv prosecutors staf the Part A

court i nN e w H a v e n , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a e ' s at orney. Four a r e as igned

to the "care crim nal" progam. T h e Part B court in New Haven has 6

ful -time, 4 "per-dim and 1 part- ime prosecutors. Four ad it onal

ful -time and 1 part-ime prosecutors staf the Part B courts in West

Haven and Merid n. A sub tan i l fraction of the case i n thedistr c

orig nate from the city of New Haven. Ap roximately 20, 0 case ent r

the Part B court each year. About 5% of the case e n t e r i n g t h e sy tem

are transfer ed to and handled in Part

A.

The Litchfield judic al distr c serv s Litchfield County, the

northwest rn-most county in the stae. This l - a - r u c - a - s e s a p m o c m e m e y t n u ~ c -

a r e aw h i c h h a s m a n y smal towns and vilages. Besid the stae' at or-

 ney, er ht era e rht n i syenrot a s'eta s tna si a

laic duj siht

,tcir s d gnikrow eno ni traP A dna owt gnikrow ni traP .B ehT traP B

truoc snoitcnuf ni tner f id ruof ,snwot e ky ir le v a "tiucri "

.truoc

fO eht 4,000 r o so gnihcaer se ac eht roi epus truoc rep year, 100-200

era der fsnart ot traP

A.

wolfesaC

tuohg rhT eht ,eta s se ac l a i c d u j e rh t n e metsy hguorht

eht

Part B .truoc tsoM snoitc dsiruj an hve tna si a (or )ytuped

s'eta s

yenrot a ohw sekat gni e rcs of ytil b snop er eht .se ac

yam ehs/ H

krow n i htiw noitarob l oc esolc eht .ecilop sihT laudiv ni

osla

eht senimret d. segrahc taht l iw eb delif tsniag .stnad ef d

esohT

se ac hci w ni eht yr ac segrahc rehgi a ytlanep naht si yb del nah

eht

ralucitrap traP B truoc era der fsnart ot eht traP A .truoc It

si

tlucif d tnes rp ot a raelc noitp rcsed fo eht sref nart morf B ot A

courts, esuaceb eht sah metsy ne b der tla ylacido rep ecnis sti
-pecni

noit ni 1978. ,ralucitrap nI eht mu ixa ytlanep f otuc rof stni p

eht

traP B degnahc e b vah struoc rebmun a . s e m i ft o sraep tI

taht

tuoba %5 fo eht gniretn se ac eht roi epus truoc yletami lu era

-snart

der f ot traP A (at tsael ehtni New nevaH dleifhctiL dna

laic duj

.)stcirtsid

tuobA 95% f o e r a m e t s y e h tg n i r e t n s t n a d e f d detcivno no eno

ro

erom .stnuoc pihsnoitaler hT ne wt b eht crime(s) fo hci w

stnad ef d

era dna etcivnoc eht segrahc lanig ro ,xelpmoc si and sdnep

eht no

type-ofcasnd .no+tc-idsiruj-eh-t - Tke-ma-jorit~ofTaT(iK s ecx f

90%) era desop id fo yb
.aelp
 Of the case tha are tried, bench trials a r em o r e com on in Part B

than Part A courts. This pat ern ap e rs to be char cteristic of m st

judic al distr c . tI has to d ni part with the types of case hand-

led by the Part B courts (traf ic infractions, mot r vehicle ac idents,

,).cte and si partly because points of law become more signif cant in

some fo thes case than det rmination of the facts.

Sentencing ni the sta e' courts si det rminate. No particular

guidelines ap ear to be fol wed, ap rt from the sta u e . Superior

court judges wil ac ept sentence recom endations, and us al y fol ow

them.

Crime Scen and Crim nalistics Services

Most of the t h i r t e mn u i c p a l i t e s in t h eN w H a v e n Judic al

Distr c with police departments a l s oh a v e identif cation or evidence

technic an specialist who search scen s of crimes forphysical evi-

denc. In ad it on, thes "D.1" of icers in the New HavenPolice Depar-

tmen also take and dev lop phot graphs and perform comparisons
fo

fingerp ints, tol and firea ms evid nce and other "impres ion"

evid nc .

Evidence whic si col ected and which can ot be an lyzed or handled

by the loca "I.D." units si transmit ed to one fo two forensic science

labor t ies in the sta e ton( including the Medical Examiner's Of ice,

which si cal ed ni for case of su pic ous or violent .)htaed The Sta e

Police Laboratory ni Meriden rec ives much fo the vidence from major

-- -

crimes, tub does not handle drug ro blo d alcoh l evid nc . Al such

evid nce, including some tradit onal crim nalistics evid nce, si sent to

the Sta e Toxicol gy Laboratory in Hartfo d.

60
 fI a rojam emirc sruc o ni snwot rehto e h tn a h t City fo New
nevaH

, ) d l e i f h c t i sL a h c u s ( eht eta S eciloP l iw yl aus eb detca noc

dna

l iw dnes tuo eno s ft oi o t s d a u q s e m i r co j a m

rof ytil b snop er kat

eht emirc .en cs er hT era larev s fo es ht stinu ni eht Stae,

-er oc

gnid ops ot tner f id eciloP eta S .stcirtsid l A der voc ecn div
yb

a Police Stae d a u q s e m ri o jc a m si det imbus ot eht nedir M Stae

eciloP
.yrotarobal

ehT Police Stae yrota b L sah enogrednu citam rd

-amrofsnart

,noit gni eb ni tuoba .97 1 roi P ot taht ,emit eht

ytil caf et s

saw yb de a h ecilop a recif o dna demrof ep no l a c i mte hwc ro

-ni

latnemurts )scitsilanim rc( se ylan fo gni f oc ,ecn div

-maxesti

snoitani ot ,stnirp eg f dna smrae if ,skramlo t .yhpargot hp dna

lA

rehto ecn div (e.g., ,sniat do lb semn, ,tniap ,riah fibers, etc.)
saw

detuor ot IBF eht yrota b L ni ,notg ihsaW D.C. A new

yrota b l

saw rotcerid detniop a ni 97 1 who des op cif tne sh ob and

wal

tnem crofne .slaitned rc niht W owt ,sraey eht f ats grew ot 8

nail v c

dna 13 nrows )ecilop( ,srenimaxe and niht w eht tsap sraey ruof
sah

erom l its nworg s t oi lev tner uc fo 22 dna snailvc 9 sworn -fo

.srecif In y r o t a b s li h t 1 8 9 a del n h lato fo 145,1 se ac and

denimaxe 741, 8 laudiv ni smeti fo .ecn dive yletamixorp A 20%f o eht

case snoi mbus ot eht Stae yrota b L si elbatu ir ot eht

seit c

dna snwot gnis rpmoc eht New nevaH

.tcir s D laic duJ

Stae Th yrota b L ygol cix T ni a sni t am droft aH f ats

fo

tuoba 30 ,srenimax e rht ylno fo mohw are truoc ,deif lauq eht -niamer

red era deif s alc " . s n a i c n h c e t "s a y r o t a b s li h T smrof ep la

gurd
- -- -
-
- - ---- -
dna do lb g n i t s le o h c l a ni eht Stae, sulp emos fo eht
ygol cix t

gnitse in rof se ac ht ed denoits uq the lacidem s'renimaxe

.ecif o
T h e y a l s o examine a r s o n a d sexual as ult-re a d evid nce as wel as

oc asional trace videnc for other types of ofens.

Evidence Priorit es

Practical y al case with evid nce s u b m i t e d to t h e S t a eP o l i c e

Laboratory in Meriden rec ive an examin t o . This can eb at ributed to

a lighter than aver g caseload whic , ni turn, si a r e f l e c t i o n fo the

fact tha this facil ty examines no drugs and narcotics (whic are

handled by t h e s t a e toxic logy .)yrota b l tI should a l s o be rem -

ber d tha in 198 , the enha ced cap bil t es of the Meriden labor t y

had be n ni ef ct for only about two years. In ad it on, many loca

jurisdictions ni Con ecti u conti ue to perfo m their own fingerp int,

firearms and physical matching examin t ons which also reduces the flow

of case into t h e c ntralized laborty.

Lower caseloads al ow this labor t y to ke p its examin t ons of

evidence cur ent with ong i police investiga ons. This also refl cts

the sta ed policy fo the labor t y a d m i n s t r a t i o nw h i c h si to enga e in

examinations of evidence t ob e n f i law enforcem nt agencies through t

t h e sta. tI si stil a regular practi e, howev r, for examiners to

scre n incoming e v i d e n c e and condu t ful -sca e an lyse o n o n l y sel c-

t emda t e r i a l s g a t h e r d f r o m the field. As si the c a s ew i t h other crime

labor t ies, this si a function of scient s ' as e m nt of the

-ive

dence submit ed, the av ilabil ty of stand r s from su pects and the

ne ds fo a p rticular invest ga ion.

 noituces rP
seit roi P

,yliramotsuC ,neht it si eht lortap ro emirc en cs recif o

ohw

setai n eht noitan m xe fo eht htiw ecn dive sti nois mbu ot
eht

.yrotarobal modleS od srotucesorp tes eht ecn dive weiv r s ecorp

otni

,noit m ron do yeht ksa taht cif eps st et ro sno irapmoc eb

-rednu

.nekat er hT are, fo ,esruoc snoitpecx ot siht

-ucesorp nehw nret ap

srot hcaorp a a truoc rieht dnif dna etad elif gnikcal a bal trope
dna

tca noc eht yrota b l ot tpmorp an .noitanimaxe srotuce P

o s yl a m

evah snoitseuq ro sno aer cif eps gniksarof eht yrota b l ot

mrof ep

de a
.snoitan m xe

tI si ecit arp eht ni htob New nevaH dna

t n a s i a r o df l e i h c t i L

syenrot a s'eta ot y r o t a b h tl i w r e f n o c st i ne cs roi p ot

.lairt

New The ecif o nevaH sah eht noita uper rof gnieb erom
nahtevis erg a

snoitc d ruj ehto dna l iw yltneuq rf e ht i s v yrota b l ot

weiv r

dna ecn dive ht eht sgnid f fo .renimaxe ht syenrot A ni htob

-fo

secif n i e c n d i f n o ct a e r g s e r p x eht ytilauq dna s en t lpmoc fo

-neics

decu orp stlu er cif t, s i hytb yrota b l dna eht der f o ynomitse
yb

srenimax ni .truoc l a c i t r c s e m i t o se r a s y e n r o t A fo lacol

ecilop

stnem raped hci w tcudnoc rieht nwo "cisnerof" snoitan m xe dna

ref p

yeht eb yb del nah eht nedir M

.ytil caf

noitac um oC fo
stlu eR

e r a s n o i t a n m x e f os t r p e R ylenituor detubirts d ot gnit mbus

wal

ne fFr-c-em-en tagehcCieS~dCtheap rop

r late oT'y5i roTt as1eta s f f ei c T ThT --

New Haven s ' y e n r o t sa' e t a s syolpme cif o an rotagi sevni boj es hw it

63 ?
 si ot ke s ehtuo sleauc i s y h p dna ot
y r o t a b l e t a i r p o e r u bs

snoita m xe evah ne b .det lpmoc The nedir M yrota b l si also

e ln bi a t o taht it ycilop ne o a sni t am htiw tceps r ot sti

-ni

snoitcare htiw esn f d .syenrot a yrota b L staf era ton deriuq

ot

morf n is mrep niatbo law tnem crof ro lairotucesorp slaic f o

erof b

yeht s uc id stlu er with esn f d .syenrot a syenrot a s'eta S l iw

eb

demrofni fo howevr, contas, uh yam dna tcel e bo t tnes rp

ta

secn r f o ro er hw defns g n i r bl e s n u o c ni nwo rieht strepx

ot

reviw eht
.ecnedive

Althoug eta s ,dezilartn c facilty,

s t i n e c s i s n e r o df M

yfitse ni noitcarf laitn sbu a fo se ac whic l a i r t do e c r p

dna

n e b v a h s e y l a n y r o et a h wb l .demrof ep The
y r o nt ea d i b Ml

yfitse r nimaxe s tami e rotc id ni 20% f o se ac hci w ,denimax

si

eht t sf eo h g i la snoitc d ruj .dei uts eta S hT si

hguonel ams

georaphicly taht levart a tnes rp o seod mit major tnemid p

ot

denom us t i ne cs ot a .noitc dsiruj laco srotuce P sem

desa lp

have to a Stae yrota b l cisnerof fo nwo rieht rehtar( gnivah naht

ot

dnep upon eht FBI )yrotarobaL wish and ot esicr x rieht evitagor p
ta

ytinu rop y ev ot use ecruos iht s to i tsel uf

.tnetxe
 NOTE

1.The r e a d e r is ref r ed to Chapter IV of the report Forensic Evidence

and thePolice (pet rson te al., 1984) f o r a ful discus ion of such

evidence examination practices.

 CHAPTER
VI

RATES OF UTIL ZATION OF FORENSIC EVID NCE 1975-8

Introduction

This chapter introduces ruo an lysi fo the prosecut case file

dat. For the xamin t on fo rates fo util zation fo forensic evid nc ,

a sample fo prosecutor case files in 1975, 1978 and 198 ni each fo the

six site was glean d for information

:no

o Type fo of ens charged

oP r e s n c e / a b s e n c e fo a labor t y repo t in the case file

oN a t u r e fo physical evid nce ol ect d

o Result fo labor t y tes ing (as oci t ve, dis ociat ve, identif cation)

A op e a r n c e of exp rt ta trial

Method of Ap roach

Dat from a r ndom sample fo felony case fil ngswer exp cted to

help achiev two of the prima y aims of the study: to establish rates

fo usage fo scient fic evid nce and to det rmine the ef cts fo this

evid nce on case outcme. Given thes dual objectiv s, we required a

dat source tha contai ed information about the evid nce gather d by

police, the outc me fo labor t y repo ts, def n a t char cterist c ,

and ar e l i a b l e reco d of case dispo t n.

P r o s e c u t o rc a s e files rep sent d the single most complet source

- -- - A -

fo information about evid nce used in a prosecuti n, soci -demographic

char cterist c of the d f n a t and "sy tem proces ing" char cterist c

76

Preceding page blank 1

fo the case; i.e., man er fo disposit on, conviction sta us and

sent ce. For the purpose fo this s t u d yw e made the as umption tha
fi

scientif c informationwer to eb used ni a prosecution, the case file

shouldcontain a copy of pertine t forensic laboratory .)s(troper We

recognize tha suchan as umption may lead to the incor ect categor-

ization of c a s e w h e r ap r o s e c u t o r has had verbal contac with a labo-

ratoryexaminer tub a laboratory repo t was nev r produce . tI si our

understanding, thoug , tha such an oc ur ence si ra e; particularly

ni

case wher the scientif c result are pivotal ni decid ng case outcme.

After consulta ion with study sites, and consideration fo timeand

resource constraints, we decide to tcel .s a random sample fo prosecutor

case files from thre calendar years: 1975, 1978 and .189 The year

1975 repres nted the earliest year for al six study jurisdictions wher

crime laboratory, police and prosecutor records wer stil intac and

ac es ible; 1981 served as tmhoes r e c n t year for which final case

disposit on dat wer av ilable (dat wer col ected from thes case

files in the spring and sum er fo

.)3891

With minor exc ptions, case wer drawn from f i l e sw h e r felony'

charges had be n brought ag inst a def nda t dna the charges had be n

su tained at an in t al judic al (proba le cause) scre ni g. As a

result, case ni which police had made a felony ar est and the prosecu-

tor declined to file charges, ro wher the prelim nary hearing judge had

dismis ed the case for lack of proba le cause, are not include in the

sample.

The decis on to sample case at this stage and not, for example, at

the point of police ar est, was made aftervis ts to our various study

locations and discus ions among the project staf and advisory com it-

86
 .e t We wer influenc d by the fact tha ours was a study fo forensic

evidence in court and not one fo police e v i d e n c eg a t h e r i n g ro case

prepar tion practi es. We w e r a l s o f a m i l a wr i t h t h e p r o b l e m s of

tracking case betw n the point of ar est and prosecutorial chargin ;

e.g., the police and prosecutor us al y employ dif er nt case numbering

and fil ng sy tems ni log in case. This particular problem si furthe

exacerbated by the fact tha felony courts us al y have county-wide

jurisdiction and may rec ive ar est case from sev ral dif er nt police

agenci s. Tracking only case from a particular police agency would

have given su an incomplet picture of the crim nal courts in most

fo

our study jurisd ctions.

We wer also encouraged to construct our sample from case tha had

survi ed a prelim nary hearing by our desire to obtain a suf ic ently

large number fo case which util zed forensic evid nc . Previ,ous

res archers, such as Rosenthal and Travnecik ,1479 ( wer les than

suc es ful in measuring the impact of scientif c evidence due to the

smal percentage fo police case in which such evidence si col ected and

examin d. We knew, to , tha ther is a sign ficant reduction in case

when prosecutors scre n ar est and we wer concerned tha fi we sampled

case prior to a prelim nary hearing tha our sample fo case with

forensic evidence would become so smal as to preclude any meani gful

an lysi . For t h ey a r s 1975 and 1978, we set a sample size goal fo

05

case files in each study site. For the year 198 , we doubled this

number and set out to examine 1,0 randomly drawn felony case in each

locati n. We estimated tha the 05 case lev would be suf ic ent to

as s essxa t es o o-e~asu f f-ev idenc ubie t--t ha t-i t-oukd-b-6 %nif f i z e n

- 5 t. 7

as e the relative impact of the scientif c information. Such sample

 size could not be achiev d ni some jurisd ctions. We had t o examine

the entir po ulation fo felony case fil ngs in New Haven and

Litchfield, Con ecti u for more than a s i n g yl e a r to evn ap roach our

1,0 case objectiv . In our other locati ns, we had more than e ough

case files to reach the goal fo 1,0 sampled case.

Computer gen rated random numbers wer used t o sel ct the files

tha would be revi w d. Dif er nt set fo random n u m b e r sw e r ne d

for each jurisdiction, fo course, not only because fo dif ering case

numbering sy tems tub also due to vari nces in to al caseload .ezis For

example, in Chicago we had to sel ct our sample from about 10, case

fil ngs for 198 , w h i c hn e c s i t a e d a 10% sample; in Peoria, wher

about 2 , 0 case wer filed, we to k a %05 sample. We sel cted simple

.random samples ot avoid the introduction fo unco tr l ab e biase or the

creation of a set of files which wer not t r u l yr e f l e c t i v e fo case

prosecut d in the various jurisd ctions studie.

Theunit of an lysi in our study si the def nda t charged with one

or more felony crimes. As such, fi a single inc dent resulted i n the

ar est and chargin of thre d fenda ts, we tracked only one (randomly

sel ct d) def n a t. fI more than a single d fenda t wer cited ni the

ind ctme or information, our dat col ectors would eith r flip a coin

or rol a die to sel ct which def nda t to

.kcart

The Case

Table 4.1 show the types of of ens include in each of our

samples drawn from calend r year 1891 in the six jurisd ctions. violent

of ens (murde , at empt murde , rape and robey) cons t i tu e a large

 Table 4.1

Offenses Sampled in Six Study Sites

(1981)

City

Kansas New
Chicago Oakland City Peoria Haven Litchfield
Offense 11x990 n=955 ~ 8 9 4n=1057 111442 n=234

Murder 6% 2% 2% 1% 4% 0%

Att. Murder/
Agg. Asslt 8% 8% 5% 12% 4% 0%

Rape/Sex Ass1 t 5% 5% 5% 2% 16% 15%

Robbery 17% 15% 15% 5% 26% 5%

Burglary 14% 25% 26% 21% 8% 27%

TheEt/Fraud 19% 19% 30% 25% 6% 14%

Drugs ' 13% 11% 7% 11% 13% 10%

Other 19% 15% 10% 25% 18% 26%

 share fo the felony case prosecut d ni NewHaven ;)%05( Chicago
)%63(

and Oakl nd )%13( than in Kans City ,)%72( Litchfield )%42( and Peoria

(19%). The twoC n ecti u locations distinguish thems lves with a

higher than verag perc ntage of rapes (around ,)%51 compared to about

5% or les for the other jurisd ctions.

New H a v e n also has a s u b s t a n t i a l yg r e a t e r perc ntage fo rob eri s

)%62( than t h e r main g jurisd ctions. Kans City has the gr ates

perc ntage fo burgla ies and thefts .)%75( Chicago and New H a v e nh a v e

the hig est perc ntage of drug of ense prosecutions

.)%31(

Figure 4.1 displays the perc nt fo violent of ens in e a c h fo the

six site for the thre years 1975, 1978 and .189 For five fo the

cit es, the fraction fo violent of ens si steady over this time pe-

riod. For Peoria, about one-fi th of charged felonies are violent

crimes. For Kans City and Litchfield the perc nt violent crime
si

roughly one-quart. In Oakl nd and New H a v e n the perc ntages are

roughly one-third and one-half, resp ctively. In Chicago, howev r, the

fraction fo charges which areviolent c r i m e s drop ed from 50% ni 1975 to

35% in 198 , r e p r e s n t i n g a 30% reduction.

toN surp is ngly, the injuries s u t a i n e d yb the victims of thes

crimes w e r s u f i c e n t l y serious to merit nota ion in the police repo t

37% of the time in New Haven, 26% fo the time ni C h i c a g o and 21% of the

time in Oakl nd. Thes are the jurisdictions in whic violent crimes

comprise the largest s h a r e of the to al caseload. Weapons are invol ed

ni almost half )%94( of the New H a v e n o f e n s e and more than one-third

(38% and 34% resp ctively) of charged of ense in Chicago and Oaklnd.

- - - -- - - - -

Firea ms are pres nt in 21% fo New Haven crimes, %81 of Chicago of ens

and 14% of Oakland crimes. Guns or other weapons are actu l y used in

 %32 of the Chicago case , %02 fo New Haven charges and %71 of the

Oakland crimes.

In our sub equ nt an lyse fo case outc me and sentencing, we have

created a new variable (seriou n s ) which incorp ates thes ind ca-

tions fo injury, pres nce and use fo weapons/guns and of ense type

(violent or pro e ty) into a ni e-l v ordinal scale. As would be

exp cted, the thre jurisdictions having the great s number fo "se-

rious" of ense are, once ag in, New Haven, Chicago, and Oakl nd.

Def ndants were charged with ad it onal, ro les r include of ens , in

one-quart (Kans City) to one-half (Litchf eld) fo case ni the

various locati ns.

The reader si ref red to Ap endix IV (Prosecutor C a s e F i l e Char c-

terist c ) for a more complet overview fo def nda t, evidentiary and

sy tem proces ing char cteristics fo our case sample. We are now ready

to review thevariables pertain g to the forensic evidence in the

sampled case .

Overal Rates of Usage of Forensic Evidence

Figure 4.2 shows t h ep r c e n t a g e of felony c a s e f i l e wd h e r a

forensic laboratory repo t si pres nt in the case jacket. We should

acknowledge tha the ap ear nce fo a laboratory repo t in the file does

not nec s arily indicate tha the informationcontained in the repo t

was a factor in det rmin g case outc me. Nonethel s , if a labor t y

repo t si absent from a case file, ther si reasonable certainty tha

--

p p - -- -
--
p p p p - - --- - - -

scientif c dat di not play a sign ficant role in thed liberations

fo

the prosecutor or the outcome fo the

.esac
 A city yb city comparison rev als tha the rates fo labor t y

repo t p r e s n c e are fairly consi ten acros years and acros cites.

NI en w H a v e n , l a b o r t y r e p o t s a r e pres nt in about 40% of case . In

Chicago and Peoria, close to thir y perc nt of the case contain labo-

rato y repo ts. The higher rate for Peoria in 1975 si a reflection
fo

an increas d drug caseload in tha year -- case whic must have a

labor t y repo t to proce d. The same si true for Litchfield, wher
ni

1975 labor t y repo ts a r e pr sent in close to 40% of case files. For

the other two time p riods, the rates are 19% and 17%, resp ctiv ly.

Kans City, on aver g , has labor t y repo ts in about one-quart

fo

the c a s e fils. Over one-third fo Oakl nd's case have labor t y

repo ts in 1975 and 1978, tub this drops to 26 perc nt in 198. Peoria

and New H a v e n c o n s i t e n t l yh a v e t h e hig est rates fo usage fo forensic '

evid nc , hovering around 30 to 40% of prosecuti n . Overal , then, the

trend si for laboratory repo ts to ac ompany from one-quarte to one-

third fo f e l o n y case tha have survi ed in t al scre ni g. Ther has

be n on increase ni the fraction of case with labor t y repo ts from

1975 ot 198 ; ni fact, in thre of the six jurisd ctions studie , the

r a t e s in 198 are lower than ni the two previous years studie .

R a t e s of Usage fo Forensic Evidence by Crime T y p e

When the pres nce of a labor t y repo t si consider d yb crime

type, we find considerable dif er nces among crimes and acros years

(Table 4.2). Thus, considering only the 198 dat, we se tha some

-- -- - - - - - A -- - - - - -

c r i m e typs-murd and rug case - pr cti al y alw ys have a labo-

ratory repot. or murde s, this would include both crime labor t y

67
 Table
2.4

Rates of Usage fo Scientif c Evidenc

yb
Of ense Category over
1891-5791
(perc ntages)

Chicago Peoria Kan City Oakland hcti.L New Haven

Of ense 75 78 18 75 87 18 75 87 18 75 78 81 75 78 18 75 87
18

9 4 01 01 01 01
01
Murder 78 01 01 2 9 01
01
0 9 01 4 9 0 9 --
01

14 40 27 13 16 19
At ~urd/ 90 11 50 11 13
36
Ag taB t 10 01 19 90 0
20

2 8 83 25 6 1 24 3 3
Rape 4 6 42 0 6 54 2 4
63
87 35 5 1 46 41 3 1

50 40 19 70 15 12
Rob ery 30 19 80 16 12
13
2 0 2 2 01 11 80
17

15 25 16 03 1
53
Burglary 12 35 52 5 3 20
34
13 3 1 19 2 1 01
04

17 40 80 2 33
80
Theft 20 41 13 13 14
71
50 17 . 90 50 0 3 0

94 69 9 7 89 79 98

Drugs 90 8 1 01 I00 86
01
_ 7 9 - __
9 3
-
8 9_ ___ -
89
- 78 2 7 _ __
 repo ts sa wel as autopsy and toxicol gy results from the medical

examiner/cor nerts .)ecif o While other crimes-thf and burglay-e

ra ely as ociated with forensic an lyse . Gen ral y speaking, after

murde and drug case , Labor t y reports are next most likely for

rapes. They are p sent in from 14% itchfeld) to 78% (Chicago) of

the rape files. Overal , labor t y reports are pres nt next most

frequently for burglary prosecutions, ranging from a high of 40%

fo

burgla y files ni New Haven to a low f 13% fo burglary files

ni

Chicago. Forensic evidence reports are next most com on in rob e i s.

In Peoria, about 2 % fo rob ery prosecutions have a forensic laboratory

report; ni New Haven about .%71 Kansa City, Litchfield and Oakland

have laboratory eports pres nt ni about %01 of rob ery case , but

Chicago has laboratory repo ts for rob eries only about 2% of the time.

At empted murders and ag rav ted as aults are compar ble to rob eries,

with laboratory eports pres nt about 10% to 20% of the time. Kansa

City and New Haven are thejurisdictions wher laboratory reports are

pres nt most frequently in as ults and at empted murde s.

Over the 1975- 8 period, the p rcent fo murders and drug case

ac ompanied by laboratory repo ts remains consi ten ta 09 to 10 %

fo

murder case files. The rate fo laboratory reports for at empted murder/

ag rav ted bat ery case , si gen ral ydeclin g (excpt for Peoria and

New
.)nevaH

Ther si no clear pat ern to rates of forensic evidence an lyse in

rape case. I nC h i c a g o and New Haven ther si real y no change,

ni

Peoria nd Kansa City rates have increased and in Oakland and Litch-

1f dec l i d i - A b le a n aF tx 5p l R i t h i t i X tiiS w i t h i i3 i-t a1 1 yl-

rates fo forensic evidence examination in rape case would be the ones

 tsom yleki ot wohs esa rcnia (a tluser fo egd lwonk desa rcni
tuoba

eulaveht fo cisnerof ecn dive ni epar s )a w n o i t u c e s o r p ton

.detrop us

emoS yl ait n wol e s a r c nd i s n o i t a c o l e t a r rieht esu fo

cif tneics

,ecn div tub srehto di ton ,egnahc ro decu r nev rieht ycneuq rf
fo

.egasu airoeP si eht er hw noitc ds ruj ylno er ht si a dekram

esaercni

ni yrota b l stroper ni yreb or .se ac The setar fo ycneuq rf

fo

ecn dive cif tneics ni seiralg ub era tahwemos ydaets revo eht
e rht

sraey delpmas hcaeni fo eht seti yduts hguo tla er ht si enilc d a

ni

.dnalkaO tceps rhtiW ot ,tfeh tsom noitcudera wohs snoitc d ruj

ni

ecn dive cisnerof .noitanimaxe airoeP si yhtrowe n ni

niag ecno

esa rcnia gniwohs ni etar fo egasu fo cisnerof .ecnedive airoeP is

ylnoeht noitc dsiruj er hw eht etar of cisnerof ecn dive egasu

sah

yl autc desa rcni ni erom naht yrogetac esn f o en revo eht

1891-5791

.doirep

Our yevrus fo srotcerid yrota b l slaev r rieht aht

snoitpecr p

fo eht ecnatropmi fo cisnerof ecn dive ni gnid ce eht semoctu

fo

e s n f so u i r a v sepyt yl aren g sle 1ar p es ht seicn uqerf elbaT(

.)3.4
Drug sred um ,se n f o and separ are thguoht ot eb esoht esn f o
-etac

seirog er hw ecn dive cisnerof si fo tse a rg .ecnatropmi

cisneroF

ecn dive ni seiralg ub si thguoht ot eb fo etar dom ,ecnatropmi

elihw

ecn dive cif tneics ni detav rg asult, seir b o stfeh dna

is

tsael d re isnoc .tnatropmi tcelf r seduti a es hT eht egasu

-sita s

scit deziram us ni elbaT

4.2.
 Table
4.3

IMPORTANCE OF FORENSICEVIDENCE NI DECI NG THE

OUTC MES OF SPECIF C OF ENS

(n = 245)

Importance of

Forensic Evidenc

Crime Type (meanvlu) "

Homic de
3.4

Rape

Hit a n dR u n

Arson
8.2

Burglary
2.6

Ag rav ted As ault 2.4

Rob ery
2.3

Larceny
0.2

" Ratings of importance ranged from )1( min al ot ( 4 ) esntial.

Rates of Usage fo Specif Types fo ForensicEvidence

We also tabulated the frequency fo oc ur enc of specif c evid nce

types in major of ense categories. Thes dat are displayed ni their

entire y in Ap endix IV e s( Tables .)01.VI-6.v1 The dat are

sum arized in Table 4.4. Only those forensic evidence ategories which

are pres nt in 10% or more fo sel cted of ense types are include . Each

lI+ll
ind cates the pres nce fo an evidence type ni an of ens category

%01( or more of the time) ni a jurisd ction. Fingerp ints, for example,

are p sent 10% ro more of the time in murder prosecutions in five

jurisdictions, tub for rapes in only one jurisdiction (~eoria). Fin-

gerp ints ap ear most often in burgla ies; ni 34% of such prosecutions

ni New Haven, %52 fo case ni Peoria, and 17% ni Oaklnd.

As forblo d and blo dstain evid nce, ti si found most consi tently

ni murder prosecutions -- ni about half the case in Peoria, Kans City

and New Haven. Blo d tes results are found next most often in rape

prosecutions, wher blo d si drawn from the victim dna su pect for the

pur ose of comparing the blo d group fo the sem n don r and the s men

evid nce found in-the victm. Blo dstains may, also, eb used as evi-

denc ot( a les r ext n ) wher thSe vict m and/or su pect are injured

ni the course of the crim nal act.

Firea ms evidence si an lyzed next most frequ ntly, us al y

ni

murde and ta t e m p t e dm u r d e r l a g r a v t e d b a t e r y case. Firea ms evidence

si examined and reported in about thre of four murder prosecutions in

Peoria nd Kansa City, tub in only one-quart ro les of such case

ni
- --
-- PA- --

Chicago and oakl nd. In the at temp murde lag r vat ed bat ery prosecu-

tions, firearms are examined far les often -- ni only about 10% of
 Table
4.4

Frequency of Oc ur ence
fo
Scientif c Evidence by Of ense Type"

tA tM u r d /

Evidence Type Murder Ag Bat Rape Rob ery Burglary

Fingerp ints +++++ + + + +++++

Blo d

Firearms

Sem n

Hair

Impres ions/

Imprints +

Each (+) repres nts one city wher evidence category

pres nt ta least 10% fo time

 case ni C h i c a g o andK sa City, and les than tha in the other

jurisd ct on .

Sem n evid nce si us al y only repo ted ni rape prosecutions,

rangi from ah i g h fo about thre -quarte s fo case nC Chicago to about

one-quart fo case ni N e wH a v e n a n d Litchf eld. H a i r evid nc , also,

si predomina t in rapes, althoug to a far les r ext n than sem n.

tI

si an lyzed ni about one-third fo rape prosecutions in Peoria and Kans

.ytiC Kans City si a l s o dist nc ive ni tha hair si examined and

repo ted in about one-third fo its murde prosecutions, placing ti far

above other jurisd ctions studie.

Impres ion a d impr nt evid nce si t h eo n l y o t h e r e v i d n c e t y p e to

ap e r in 10% ro more fo any jurisd ction's prosecuti n . tI si in

Peoria wher this type fo evid nce ap ears ni half )e rht( of its ix

murde prosecuti n .

Changes ni Rates fo Usage fo Specif c Types of F o r e n s i cE v i d e n c e

Tables 5.4 through 61.4 t a b u l a t e the five categories of scient fic

evid nce categories most frequ ntly examined and described in the labo-

rato y repo ts pres nt ni the case files. The first table for each site

gives the p rc nt fo time tha the laboratory )s(trope f o u n d in the

case file include result fo an examin t on fo tha subtance. The

second table displays the r sult of tes ing perfo med on the evid nce

item z d in the first table. For al of the jurisd ctions, contr l ed

sub tances and fingerp ints are the predomina t evid nce categori s.

- --
ehT- result are b oken int3-sS&x categor-i=;TnfOm
hci lweso t

as ociate )knil( the def n a t with the crime, to ones which contribute

no usef l information to the case (incolusve). The r ader

si

ref red to Ap endix 2.I X for a more detailed d i s c u s i o n fo thes

categori s.

The increas d pres nce fo drug evid nce noted in the first tables

for e a c h s i t e also explains the increas from 1975 ot 198 ni the per-

centage of "posit ve ident f ca ions". The end result of most drug

examin t ons si an identif cation of a contr l ed sub tance.

For Chicago, the gen ral trend in evid nce categories si an

-ni

crease ni drug an lyse -- the rate in 198 )%25( si almost double the

lev )%92( in 1975 (Table 4.5). In ad it on, thre othermajor

-ive

d e n c e c a t e g o r i e s , fingerp ints, firea ms and blo d, have decr ased over

the same thre year period. Fingerp ints, for example, are repo ted as

examined ni 28% fo case files in 1975, tub in only 1% of case files in

198. With resp ct to the result fo tes ing perfo med on the evid nc ,

Table 4.6 ind cates tha the most c o m o n outc me si an identif cation of

a contr l ed sub tance. The "as oci t n" category, wher evid nce

s e r v e s to link a def nda t with a crime scen or vict m, show about a

50% decline from 1975 to .189 Again, this refl cts a reduc caseload

of violent of ens c o u p l e dw i t h a n increas in drug evid nce being

scientif cal y examind.

roF Peoria, Table 7.4 show tha drugs and fingerp ints c o m p r i s ea

sub tan i l porti n of the videnc examin d. Drug evid nce shows a

sub tan i l decline from 1975 to 1978, a n d remains ta about the same

lev in .189 On thew ole, more firea ms, sem n and blo d evid nce
si

being reported to prosecutors in 198 than in 1978, tub the sreblpun are

stil quite s m a l w h e n c o m p a r e dw i t h t h e drug and fingerp int categor-

.sei Table 4.8 demonstrates tha the frequency fo repo ts resulting

ni

48
 Table
5.4,

Chicago

Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in

Cases Having LaboratoryReports

Physical Evidence Examined

Evidence Category

Drugs

Fingerp ints %82 12% 11%

Firearms 13% 9 % 7 %

Semen %81 18% 14%

Blo d 9 % 6 % 5%

Table
4.6

Results of Laboratory Testing

Percent of Al Lab Results

Results 5791 8791

1981

As ociates

Fails to As ociate

Positive Identif cation %45 63% 6%

Negative Identif cation %5 %4 7 %

Reconstruction

Inconclusive

 elbaT
7.4

Peoria

poT ecn divE eviF denimaxE seirog taC

ni
gnivaH se aC
stropeR yrota b L

lacisyhP Evidenc
denimaxE

yrogetaC ecn divE 5791 8791

189
N = 192 N = 13 N = 37

Drugs

stnirp eg F

smrae iF %81 5 % %1

Semn

do lB

elbaT
4.8

stlu eR fo
gnitseT yrota b L

tnecr P fo lA baL Result

stlu eR 5791 8791 198 1

setaico A %51 36%

sliaF ot etaicos A 4 % %1

Positve noitac f nedI 62% 40%

n o i t a c f n e dv Ii t a g N %71
%7

noitcur s eR

evisulcno I
 as ociations doubled from 1975 t o 198. Results which failed to find an

as ociation betwe n t h e su pect and the crimeore than tripled from

1975 t o 1981. T h e rate of posit ve identif cations declines in this

period, par l eling the overal decline of drug prosecutions.

Tables 9.4 and 01.4 show tha the pat erns of evidence util zation

in Kansa City res mble those in Peoria nd Chicago. Drugs and fin-

gerp ints make up about 70% of the types of forensic evidence found in

the sampled case . We do find, howev r, tha the percent of case with

drug evidence si considerably les than the rates in the two Il inois

jurisdictions. This reflects the smal er percentage of drug prosecu-

tions in Kansa City compared with the other jurisdictions. The rate at

which firearms, sem n and blo d evidence si an lyzed equals or exce ds

the rates in P e o r i a n d Chicago. Table 6.8 indicates tha t h en a t u r e o f

laboratory results remains somewhat stable over the period examined,

with slightly les thanhalf ther sults fal ing into the "posit ve

identif cation" category and about one-third in the "as ociates"

clas if cation.

I nO a k l a n d (se Tables 1 .4 and )21.4 the physical evidence exam-

ined and reported in prosecutor case files is consi tent acros the

thre years. Drugs and fingerp ints are, ag in, the two most frequent

evidence categories, consti uting about thre -quarters of the evidence "

examined and reported. Ther is also a decline in the an lysi of

firearms evidence from 9 % of evidence reported in 5791 to %3 ni 198 .

Table 21.4 rev als that the nature and distribution of laboratory

results has changed lit le in the thre years sampled.

 Table
9.4

Kansa City

Top Five EvidenceCategories Examined in

Cases Having Laboratory Reports

Physical Evidence Examined

Evidence Category

Drugs

Fingerprints

Firearms

Semen

Blo d 15% 9 % 10%

Table 4.10

Results of Laboratory Testing

Percent of Al Lab Results

Results 1975 1978

1981

As ociates

Fails t Ao s o c i a t e 0% 9 % %4
Positive Identification 43% 4%
%74

Negative Identification

Reconstruction

 Table
1 .4

Oak and
1
Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in

Case Having Laboratory Reports

Physical Evidence Examined

Evidence Category 1975 1978 198

N = 17 N = 198 N = 246

Drugs 42% %94 46 %

Fingerp ints 27% 3 %3

%03

Firearms 9 % 5% 3%

Sem n 7 % %7 9%

Blo d 3% 3 % 4 X

Table
21.4

Results fo Laboratory Testing

Percent fo Al Lab Results

Results 1975 1978 198

As ociates

Fails to As ociate

Posit ve Identif cation

Negative Identif cation

Reconstruction

~Inco*.us i've---- - - -- -
 Table
31.4

Litchfield

Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in

Case Having Laboratory Reports

Physical Evidence Examined

Evidence Category

Drugs

Fingerp ints

Firearms

Sem n

B 1 od

Table
41.

Results of Laboratory Testing

Percent fo Al Lab Results

Results 1975 1978 198

As ociates 10% 28% 8 %

Fails ot As ociate 10% 8 % 10%

Posit ve Identif cation 74% 46% 64%

Negative Identif cation %1 %8 3 %

Reconstruction 1% 8 % 10%

Inconclusive 5 % 3 % 5%
 ekam pu tuoba 85% e h tf o ecn dive cisnerof detroper ni eht delpmas
se ac

ni .5791 roF eht sraey rehto ,delpmas siht spord egatnecr p ot

s el

.sdriht-owtnaht dna do lB nem s strope era tnes rp ta hcum a

rehgi

etar 1 8 9 1n i naht ehtni gnidec rp .sraey stlu er yrota b L

niamer

elbats ylevitaler ehtrevo ,denimax sraey s d r i h t - o w ht i w ot

-e rht

sret auq fo eht stlu er o t n gi l a f eht evit sop"

"noitac fitnedi

yrogetac tuobadn %01 ni eht "setaicos a" yrogetac rof( 5791 dna
1981).

,rev woH ti dluohs eb dezisahpme tah ew era gnilaed with

l a my sr e v

elpmas sezis ni dleifhctiL dna siht yltaerg stim l any

.secn refni

In weN nevaH selbaT( 51.4 dna ,16 .4 sgurd dna stnirp egnif
-moc

esirp a ytirojam fo eht ecn dive cisnerof sepyt dnuof ni eht esac
.selif

,rev woH egatnecr p eht fo g u r d htiw se ac spord ecn dive morf tuoba 55%

fo se ac ni 8 7 9d1n a 5 7 9 1 ot %93 ni .1891 sihT si

a htiw detal r oc

tnacif ngis esa rcni strope yrota b l ni fo ,nem s smrae if dna

.do lb

sihT si detc lfer n i

" s n o i t a c o s ae "r h w s t l u e r g n i t s e y r o t a b l

have desa rcni morf 29% ot %14 elihw "snoitac fitnedi v tisop" have

eud enilced to a decu r gurd

.daolesac

nI ,yram us ti sraep taht sgurd dna ekam stnirp egnif up %06

ot

%08 fo eht ecn dive cisnerof debircs n i

d n u o fs t r p e y r o t a b l e h t

rotucesorp ni esac .selif rehto ehT e rht e c n d i v e t n u q e rt fs o m

-etac

seirog ,smraerif( dna o lb )nemes ruc o s elraf netfo dna have

,desa rcedyl aren g nehw 189 slev era derapmoc htiw 5791
.slev l

ehT stluser fo yrota b l gnitse have dewol f nret ap ralim s

revo

eht sraey htiw ,delpmas "snoitac fitnedi evit sop" and

"snoita cos a"

gnikam pu ytirojam eht fo

.stluser
--
p p -- -

-- -- -1 - t s - i i - rekn s e i - t ng-trc rapmo t-e keseTt35FT£ u i w t i h eht -ropmi

ecnat s e i r o g e t a sc u o i r a v d e n g i s a fo ecn dive yb yrota b l

.srotcerid

91

 Table
51.4

New Haven

Top Five Evidence Categories Examined in

Case Having Laboratory Reports

PhysicalEvidence Examined

Evidence Category

Drugs

Fingerprints

Firearms

Semen

B od
1

Table
61.4

Results of Laboratory Testing

Percent of Al LabResults

Results 1975 1978 1981

As ociates

Fails to As ociate

Positive Identif cation

Negative Identification

Reconstruction

Inconclusive 7 %

* For 1975, the category is to lmarks.

9 2

 Table 4.17 displays the ranki gs given various evid nce types by heads

fo labor t ies include in our national survey (se Chapter

V).

Labor t y directors gen ral y agre tha drugs and fingerp ints are

most importan categories fo evid nce fol wed yb firea ms/to lmarks and

the grouping fo physiol gical fluids.

Tables 81.4 through 32.4 sum arize the result of labor t y tes-

ing for e a c h site on an evid nce specif basi. The number in pare-

thes ben ath thep rcentages in the tables cor esponds to the number

of times the particular evid nce category was examined ni a given

.raey

Given the infrequ ncy with w ich same videnc categories ap e r, per-

centages are pres nted only when five or more items of physical evid nce

are examined and repo t d.

Table 4.18 pres nt the evid nce specif result for Chicago.

Suspect d drugs are identif ed ni practi al y ev ry case wher they are

examin d. Firea ms evid nce result in as ociat ve find gs a hig er

perc ntage of the t i m e t h a n t h eo r e v i d n c e c a t e g o r i e s , although

ther si a decline in the most rec nt year survey d. Fingerp int evi-

dence result in an as ociation about one-third fo the time in 1975 and

198 , tub about two- hirds of the time in 1978. The rates of as oci -

tive result ni the blo dstain evid nce have steadily increas d from

1975 to .189 Twenty- hr e percnt of the r sult of laboratory tes ing

result in an as ociation in the most rec nt time period. The rate

fo

identif cation for sem n si about %06 for the last two years fo the

sample. T h i s rep sent a reduction from the 83% rate of posit ve

identif cations in
.5791
PA Tab a c - i d1n i - 9 1 7 4 - e f i t n e d - i a f n t a r - e ht - t a h t - s e i-EStinOf su pect
de
drugs in Peoria si very high acros al years survey d. Although the

 Table
71.4

IMPORTANCE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE TYPES NI DECID NG

THE OUTC ME OF CRIM NAL CASE

n( = )142

Importance of Specif c

Evidenc Categories

Evidenc Category (meanvlu) *

Drugs
3.8

Fingerp ints

Firea ms

To lmarks

Blo dstains (groupin)

Ac el rants

Explosive

Fibers

Paint

Hair

Glas

Blo dstains (paterns)

Soi 1

" Ratings fo importance ranged from )1( min al to (4) es ntial.

 Table
81.4

Chicago

Evidence Specific Laboratory Results by Year

Year Of ense Charged

Evidence Category/

Result 5791 8791

1891

Drugs

Positive Ident.

Fingerprints

As ociation

Firearms

As ociation

Blo dstains

As ociation

Semen

Positive Ident.

As ociation

 Table 4.19

Peoria

Evidence Specific Laboratory Results by Year

Year Offense Charged

Evidence Category/
Result 1975 1978 1981

Drugs
Positive Ident. 79% 85% 89%
(1 48) (58) (167)
Fingerprints
~ssociation

Firearms
Association

Bloodstains
Association

Semen
Positive Ident.
Association
 rate of as ociations for the fingerp t evid nce drops a tib in 198 ,

ti stil stands ta the 50% .lev For firea ms and blo dstains, ther

are so few case with thes types fo evid nce ni 1975 and 1978 tha the

rates can ot be consider reliab. In 198 , the firea ms result show

an s ociation about two-hirds fo the time, and blo dstain about 40%

fo the .emit The s e m n evid nce category si notew rthy not because
fo

the ra fo posit ve identif cations as much as for the hig rate

fo

as ociat ve findgs. This ind cates tha the labor t y ton only
si

identify ng sem n, tub si a l s o d e t r m i n g t h ep r s n c e of various blo d

group sub tances w h i c h c a n serv sa a linkage betw n the su pected

of end r and the victim of the .epar P e o r i a h s th ieg s rate

fo

as ociat ve sem n evid nce fo al the jurisdictions studie.

For Kans City able 4.20), almost ev ry su pect d drug an lysi

rev als the pr senc o f a contr l ed sub tance. Fingerp ints as ociate

the def nda t with the crime about thre -quarte s of the time in 1975

and two- hirds of the time ni .189 Firea ms evid nce rev als an
-sa

sociat on about one-quart fo the time in 198 ; the h i g h e r perc ntage

)%34( ni 1978 should be discounted due to the smal sample size. The

sample size for blo dstain evid nce are smal in 1975 and 1978, tub in

198 rev al a n s o c i a t i o n about one-f urth of t h e t i m eb l o d s t a i n

evid nce si examined and repo t d. Posit ve identif cations fo sem n

oc ur about.hlf the time in 1 9 7a 8n d 198.

We f i nv de r y h i g h rates of posit ve drug identif cation in Oakl nd

able )12.4 acros al thre years. Fingerp int as ociat ons are among

the hig est fo al j u r i s d i c t i o n s ,y i e l d i n g a posit ve a s o c i a t i o n from

-- - -- - -- - -- - -

%56 to 75% of the .emit Although the numbers are very smal for fire-

arms and blo dstain evid nc , ti ap e rs tha the rates of as ociation

9 7

 Table 4.20

Kansa City

Evidence SpecificLaboratory Results by Year

Year Of ense Charged

Evidence Category/

Result 5791 8791 891 1

Drugs

Positive Ident.

Fingerprints

As ociation

Firearms

As ociation

Blo dstains

As ociation

Semen

Positive Ident. -- 44% %25

As ociation -- %0
%0
( )9 )72(
 Table
12.4

Oak 1a n d

Evidence Specific Laboratory Results by Year

Year Of ense Charged

Evidence Category/

Result 5791 8791

1891

Drugs

Positive Ident.

Fingerprints

As ociation

Firearms

As ociation

Blo dstains

As ociation

Semen

Positive Ident.

As ociation

have increased over time. About half the sem n tes ing result are

posit ve in years 1978 and 198 , tub as ociations oc ur in only about

10% fo case .

For Litchfield (Table ,)2 .4 identif cation fo su pected drugs

si

very high acros al years survey d. Sample size for other specif c

types fo evidence are to smal to make firm sta em nts. Table

32.4

shows tha for New Haven, practical y ev ry drug an lysi rev als tha

the substance was contr l ed. Higher rates fo an lysi for sem n,

firearms and blo d evidence in 198 are reflected ni theighest rates

of as ociations acros al six site . Firearms result show an as ocia-

tion about thre -quarte s of the time, blo dstains 86% of the time and

semen two- hirds fo the time.

Sum ary

Violent crimes comprise a minority of the to al p r o s e c u t o r c a s e l o a d

in five fo the six jurisdictions studied in this res arch (~ew Haven
si

the one excption). Sev nty of the violent crimes charged in

fivejurisdictions are rob eries, ag rav ted as aults and at empted

murders (rapes are predomina t in the sixth site -- Litchfeld). Foren-

sic laboratory reports are found in from one-quart to one-third fo the

prosecutor case files. Lo king at specif c crimes rev als tha labo-

rHtoryreports are pres nt in practical y al murder and control ed

substance case and, in descending orde , to a les r ext n in rapes,

burglaries, rob eries, and at empt murderslag rav ted as aults and

thef. Peoria is the only j u r i s d i c t i ow nh e r rate fo usage of forensic

evidence has increased ni more than one of ense category over the 1975-

10

 Table 4.22

Litchfield

Evidence Specific Laboratory Results by Year

Year Of ense Charged

Evidence Category/

Result 1975 1978

1981

Drugs

Positive Ident.

Fingerprints

As ociation

Firearms

As ociation

Blo dstains

As ociation

Semen

Positive Ident.

As ociation

 Table
32.4

New Haven

Evidence Specific Laboratory Results by Year

Year Of ense Charged

Evidence Category/
C

Result 5791 8491

1981

Drugs

Positive Ident.

Fingerprints

As ociation

Firearms

As ociation

Blo dstains

As ociation

Semen

Positive Ident .
As ociation

 1981 .doirep roF eht and

subtceorl di,jusctn

are fingerpts eht categorispdmnv .denimaxe They

comprise 60% ot 80% fo eht describlaoty

n vforensic

.strope categorism fqunvd hoter T

,smrae if(

do lb and )nem s ruc o far s el often, dna have decras in

gly

when frequncy 1981 s i compared ot 1975. of

Finaly,detfco

comprise "atnd subce eht majority f lb

.stlu er
 RETPAHC V

SURVEY OF EHT NATIO'S SCIT LAN M RC LABORTIES

noitcud r nI
,-

reil aE hcraes sah dela v r both wol setar fo noitaz l u

fo

cisnerof ecn dive (~arker, ;3691 Laser, ;7691 nos eB te ,.la

;0791

rek aP dna ,nosret P )2791 dna sevr

emirc n ht w snoita m l ecruos

, h p e s o iJ r( t a o b l nos eB ;7691 te ,.la 1970). yam enO safely

refni

taht es ht wol setar fo egasu era atribule, ni emos measur, ot a

yticra s fo etauq d ni ,seit l caf tnempiuqe and eht kcal fo

deif lauq
-
.len osrep eW know, ,o t taht fedral, eta s dna lacol stnem r vog have

laitn sbu detacol sdnuf ot tcer o es ht gnitra s , noit d c ni

eht

ylrae
.s'0791

na nI trof e ot niatbo an etad-ot pu eliforp fo eht epocs

dna

noitac s hpo fo ,secivr yrota b l scit lan mirc and ot ecalp

eht

seit l bap c fo s e i r o t a b elh t ni ydutsr o otni laren g contex,

ew

detcu no surveya fo la seirota b l emirc elbaif tned ni eht

detinU

.seta S ehT yevrus tnemurtsni (~~~endix

)1.I X saw dengis ot
rehtag

noitamr fn e th u o b a der f o secivr yb es ht

saer ,seirota b l

er hw yeht etov d rieht resouc, len osrep and tnempiuqe

,seit l bap c

,seit ro p hcraes sa l ew sa rieht snoitpecr fo eulav eht fo

-neics

cif t ecn dive ni se n f o gnivloser ta tner f id segat fo eht

lanim rc

justice
.s ecorp

retpahc si T stne rp some fo eht stlu er t a h tf o yev.rus

gni atrep

ot secruo and ecivr s 1.snret ap Dat

s e b i r c hd w d e r h t a g

yrota b l 'srotcerid snoitpecr fo eht eulav fo tner f id sepyt

fo

cisnerof snoitan m xe are detarg ni eht o ni dnoces half s i h ft o

trope

501
 gnis erd a eht stcef fo cif tne s .ecn dive eW ev ileb siht
laren g

d n a s e i t l b a p c y r o t a b l e m i r cf o w e i v r o eht nosirapm c fo
ruo

study selctd seti ot eht yevrus result, l iw pleh so ut eton

eht

ytilaren g dna snoitc r se fo at d eht we der htag ni eht

elif sac

.se ylan

dohteM

A gnits l l afo cilbup dna etavirp emirc seirota b l ni

eht

h c i w s e t a dS i n U regulay enimax lacisyhp ecn div ni

lanim rc

se ac and strope lacinh et ylp us dna ynomitse r px ot struoc fo

wal

saw .delipmoc We deniatbo neht gs nt i l a m from hcus snoitaz n gro

sa

eht naciremA Society fo Crime srotce iD yrota b L dna

cisneroF ht

secn i S Foundati, deliam dna a ypoc fo ruo tsil fo crime sbal

ot

s e i t l c a f y r o t a b l e m i r yc a p ni hcae fo eht ytfi .seta s

eW

tneip c hr a deks ot make snoitel d ,snoit d a dna snoitcer ot

ruo

g n i t sl a n i fo crime .sbal The snoi ver detluser a in

f o t s il a n i f

319 stae, fedral, dna l oiger lacol crime

.seit l caf yrota b l

hcaE fo seirota b l es ht saw deliam a ypoc fo eht

.erian oitseuq

The tsrif mailng ni detlus r a nrute fo 091

dna dnoces ; erian o tseuq

driht sgnil am ot de l iy stned op rn 70 lanoitd .serian oitseuq

Thre denrut ew serian o tseuq .knalb ruO l arevo etar snop er

saw

82% with a lato fo 257 elbasu .serian oitseuq

 nig rO tnem calP dna fo
seirota b L

raeY
dehsilbat E

ehT tsedlo emirc yrota b l ni eht seta S d inU saw dehsilbatse

ni

1923 dna eht tsom tnec r eno ni 1982 e s( erugiF 5.1).

evif-yt iF

tnecr p )042=n( fo s e i r o t a bl a er w dehsilbatse ehtni ten year

doirep morf 8691 . 8 7 9 o1 t .S.U snoi cedtruoC em rpuS

gnitc r se

, s e c i t a r p n o i t a g r e c ln oi p eht s'tnedis rP 1967

nois m C emirC

tropeR and stnemh i o da ot ecilop ot ecnail r eta g c lp no

lacisyhp

evidnc, eht noitaerc e hf to tnem crofnE waL

noitar s n mdA ecnatsi A

)A EL( dna eht ytil ba v fo lared f monies, eht

,nois lpxe subag rd

and eht egrusp ni e r a e m ti nr c l o v la y l e r uh sc i w s r o t c a f

detalumits

eht htworg fo seirota b l gnirud .doirep siht e fh Ot emirc evif

-obal

seirota devlo ni ni ruo ,yduts e rht d e h s i l b a tr ew roi p ot

5491

,ogacihC( sa n K City dna )dnalkao , eno was de nuof ni 1974 or t on) ,

while s'tuci en oC was de napx yl acid r dna de argpu
.97 1ni

tnem calP lanoit z agrO

eni -ytnev S tnecr p fo gnid opser seirota b l ot ruo

yevrus

are niht w detacol law cilbup/tnem crofne ytefas .seicnega ehT

-niamer

gni seirota b l detubir s d era tuohg rht seicn ga hcus sa

lacidem

s'renimaxe
htlae cilbup/ fitne cs , ecif o s'r tuce o p ,secif o

agencis dna rehto cilbup ro . s n o i t u s en ti a v r p lA emirc

-rota b l

sei ni ruo s~t dy ar~e units-of law en or-c ment ag c-i~s Foar- f the

are fiv de a h yb ,st i ne cs nail v c while eht fith )ogacihC(

si

head by a
. r e c i f oe c i l p

107
 Figure
5.1
FREQUNCYMLATIV AND HISTOGRAM
FEQUNCY
ESTABLIHD
ORCM

Cumlative

Frequncy

Frequncy

Histogram

)2(

t C

920 52' 03' 53' 04' 54' 05' 5' 06' 56' 07' 57' 08'
58'

ESTABLIHD
YR
 S e r v i cP o l e s andPrcties

L a b o r t w ei s asked torp he typ o fj u r i s d c t o n they

prima ly serv e s( Table 5.1). Apart from the fdral labor t ies,

whic onsti u ed 9% of respondt a the indp labortes

whic omp sed 3%of the respond t , remaingth lbos are

almost ev nly dive btwn sta e faciltes )%64( and locper-

tions (42%). With n the sa category, we findtwce sa many satel i

labor t ies (30%) sa main faciltes (16%). tA the laco ev l the

number fo laborties are almost equydiv municpalog

(14%),

county )%51( and regional (13%) .snoitarep As decrib ni detail in

Chapter 1, two fo ourstdylabie m u n i cs e pr av l t

dnalk O(

and ,)ogacihC owt are regional notr M( andKs ,)ytiC and one si a

c e n t r a l i z d s t a fe c i l y
.)tucitcen oC(

Avail b ty of Servics ot Various User

This s e c t i o n u m a r zt eh s result of a seri of question

-sed

igned to det rmin he extn ot whic thesrvic fo laborties are

av il b e ot various .seitrap Respon indcate

:taht

o Fifty-sevn prc fo the respondig laborties wil

only
examin evidnc submit ed yb wal enforcmt ials.

Table 2.5 show ta s ta n d e fedral botis examin

-ive

denc for no-law enforcmt of ic als at a sign f ca tly lower rate

than other types fo laborties. Four of the iv labors in the --__

pres nt study tuci en oC( being the )noitpecx wil condut alyse
fo

evid nc submit ed by no-law enforcmt ials.

901
 Table
1.5

JURISDICTION SERVED

(n = 255)

Type of Jurisdiction Percent

Sta e/Main Facil ty 16%

County

Munic pal

Regional

Fed ral

Other (private,

- ~ ~ ~ p p ~ - p

* Percentages may ton ad to 10 % due to roundi g.

 Table 5.2

POLICY OF EXAMIN G E V I D E N C E FOR NO-LAW ENFORCEM NT OF IC ALS

BY TYPE OF JURISD CTION SERVED

n( = 255)

Perc nt Whic Examine

Evidence Submit ed yb
Jurisdiction Serv d Non-Law Enforcem nt Of ic als

Munic pal 5 1%

County 54%

Regional 52%

Sta e/Main Facil ty

Fed ral 36%

 o thgie-ytnev S tnecrep fo seirota b l t o nl i w wol a
rieht
tnempiuqe/s it l caf ot eb desu yb etavirp srenimaxe
ni
gnizylan
. e c n e d il va ec i s y h p

o N d n u o fe r a s e c n r e f i d l a n o i t a z n g r o t n a c i f n g i s
- a r o b ga nl o m a

seirot hci w timrep seit l caf rieht ot eb desu by etavirp srenimaxe

dna

esoht taht od .ton e rhT e h ft o seirota b l evif ni ruo yduts

,notroM(

sa n K ytiC dna t i m r e p l )i tw u c i t c e n o C hcus ,se ylan tub ylno

nehw

der o ot od so yb eht
.truoc

o owt-y newT tnecrep e hf to seirotarobal wol a rieht

srenimaxe
ot ega ne ni etavirp k r o w e s a cl n i m r c ro
.snoita lusnoc

g n i l o r t n ce h W rof epyt fo noitc dsiruj ,devr s rojam

secn ref id

.egrem seirota b l ared f na etil etas-eta S timrep rieht

srenimaxe

ot od k r o w e s a c l n i m r ce t a v i r p ta a yltnacif ngis rewol lev l %31(

dna

5 % , )ylevitcepser naht y r o t a b lr e h t o sepyt tuoba( 25% f o es ht sbal

alow srenimaxe ot ekat no lanim rc etavirp cases). sa n K

airoeP ,ytiC

dna tuci en oC l iw wol a rieht srenimaxe o t

l a n i m r ce t a v i r p n i e g a n e

work, case ; s n o i t c r s e n i a t r e ch w dnalk O dna ogacihC

.ton od

o tnecr p owt-y xiS fo eht seirota b l r i eth m r e p

srenimaxe
ot eb devlo ni ni etavirp k r o w e s a cl i v c ro
.snoita lusnoc

snwodkaerb ehtruF wohs taht s e c n r e f i d e g r a le e r h t

nehw

gnil ortn c rof .noitc dsiruj lared F seirotarobal wol a

-maxeri ht

sreni ot eb devlovni ni k r o w e s a lc i v c ylno %81 fo e m i th elihw

-cinum

seirota b l api alow esolc krowesac liv c etavirp ot 75% of eht

.emit
-
-Four0 f t h-e-ff-iv@-1-ab-o~atof iesint i intUdY,OZ&landandandbTi~h
e xe c- p e

tion, wol a rieht srenimaxe ot niega ne liv c esac

.krow

21
 o tnecr p ytrihT fo eht seirota b l l iw ezylan
lanim rc-no
ecn dive selpma ,stnatul op( etc.) ,sedic tsep nopu
.tseuqer

A nwodkaerb yb noitaz gro slaev r taht l a n o i g e rd n a y t n u o c

-obal

erom era seirota yleki o t s e l p m a s e c n d i v el a n i m r c - n o e z y l a n

naht

s e p y tr e h o fo .seirota b l ylnO eno yrota b l ni eht tner uc

,yduts

sa n K City, l iw hcus etadom c lanim rc-no ,st euq r tub ylno no

a

esac yb case
.si ab

sum, In ,neht ruo etis yduts seirota b l yl aren g era erom

-sec a

seit l caf elbis naht ruo lanoitan elpmas evah dna erom larebil
seic lop

t c e p s h rt i w ot eht aceptn fo ecn dive e h dt n a gnirahs

r i e h ft o

wal-no htiw esitr px

. s e i t r a p tnem crofne

yrota b L
stegduB

seirota b L wer deksa ot trope lato rieht stegdub laun

rof

eht years dna 7 91 .2891 seirota blared F er w de ulcxe morf

siht

yrategdub .si ylan fO sihtgnirewsna seirota b l ,noitseuq

-xorp a

yletami sdriht-ow are denoit s p niht w wal .seicn ga tnem crofne The

stlu er fo eht 81 stae dna laco seirota b l gnid opser ot

-seuq siht

detn serp a noit ni Table 5.3. The egar v laun tegdub for
es ht

t u o b a m o r f e s s e 0i r o ,t 4a 5 $b l ni 7 91 ot erom naht 0 , 9$
ni

;2891 siht stne rp an esa rcni fo yletamixorp 67%. stegdub ehT

rof

ruo degar v seirota b l etis yduts 73.1$ noil m ni 197 dna

18.1$

noil m ni ,2891 a 32% .esaercni d e s a r t c e n g i d u bs ' y t i C s a n K

eht

tsom )%741( s i rh et v o five dna ,doirep a y s'ogacihC tsaelht

%02(

.)esaercni
 Table
5.3

COMPARISON OF LABORATORY BUDGETS

7 91 and
1982'k

Budget

Total Budgets $4,109 $73,54910

Mean Budget $54,0 $908,1

% Increase

" This table includes only those (no -fed ral) laboratories tha wer in
operation during the five year period from 7 91 to
,2891
and reported their budgets on the survey instrument.

 Number fo Personl in
seirota b L

ylthgi S n a he tr o m 3,0 cif tne s len osrep are deyolpm ni

eht

257 gnid opser seirota b l ot eht .erian oitseuq rebmun aem hT

fo

len osrep rep yrota b l si ,7.1 and eht naidem si 6. nI rehto

,sdrow

%05 fo eht evah seirota b l 6 ro rew f cif tneics ,len osr p %52 dna fo

gnid opser evah seirota b l 3 ro rew f

.len osrep

ehT egar v rebmun fo cif tne s srenimaxe ni stae

)niam(

seit l caf si ;91 an egar v of 81 srenimaxe deyolpm ra ni

hcae

lared f .ytil caf ,etil as et S

s e i r o t a l bp i c n u m d n a y t n u o c

, 0 e1 g a r v dna 1 14 ,srenimaxe .ylevitcepser elihW lanoiger

-arobal

htiw ,seirot 7 egar v ,se yolpm eht tsew f rebmun fo cif tne s
-rep

.len os rebmun aem ehT fo srenimax ni ruo five yduts seirota b l

si

,81 gni ar morf s'ogacihC s y o l p m eh c i w y r o t a b l 50 srenimax

ot

s'dnalk O y l n o s y l p m he c i w
6.

nehW ew erapmoc eht lato rebmun fo len osrep

yl anoit deyolpm

ni 2891 )010,3( htiw 197 )3 0,2( er ht sah tuobane b a %05

.esaercni

yl autriV la fo siht esa rcni si elbatu ir ot eht froe b m u n new

d e t a r sc e i o t a r b l ni eht , 2 8 9 1 - 7d o 9i 1r e p ecnis eht averg
rebmun

fo len osrep rep d e n i a m esr h y r o t a b l ta 12 elbaT( 5.4). elbaT

4.5

sedivorp segar v fo srenimaxe cif tneics yb noitc ds ruj rof 7 91 and

.2891 lapic nuM lanoiger dna seirota b l ,de a v h about

averg, on

eno new renimaxe rep yrota b l ni evifs ht raey .doirep

evah er hT

rojam ne b stfihs ni len osrep snoitac l ni eta s ,smet y

,hguo t

with eta s main seit l caf gnisaercni rieht f ats cif tne s yb an

averg fo ,%81 elihw eht rebmun egar v fo

etil as ni f ats

seit l caf ne b sah decu r by .driht-eno sihT "enilced" ret al

si

il us ( ~ ~ y - sc ie ni t-i s-p i - r ma r-i-1-y--a-~e 1-f e &-on-o b-f r-and-n w e -

sa ke-1-13-be

seit l caf gnieb demrof l a i t n l ah mt si w

.sf ats
 Table
4.5

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SCIENTIF C PERSON EL

PER LABORATORY BY TYPE OF JURISDICTION SERVED

(197 and 1982)

Mean Number Mean Number

Type of Jurisdiction of Scientis of Scientis
(197) (1982)

Munic pal 31 14

County 8
1

Regional

Fed ral 1 18

Mean

 roF ruo study notr M ,seti )airoeP( sah a decn irepx

%0 1

esa rcni ni gnif ats morf( 6 ot 12) t a h tn i evif

elihw;do rep a y

ogacihC dna tuci en oC decn irepx 37% dna 44% se a rcni

.ylevitcepser

sa n K ytiC and h c a de n l k a O de da tsi ne cs eno

.hcae

Case
secit arP noita m xE

elbaT 5.5 syalpsid eht sepyt fo ecn dive denimax ni

.seirotarobal

l t as o m l A gnid opser gurd enimaxe s irota b l ecn div .)%39(

revO

shtruof-e rht fo eht seirota b l enimax semn,

,srebif ,sniat do lb

acelrnts, hairs, tniap dna .skramlo t revO flah-eno fo

- a r o b a el h t

seirot enimax glas, fireams, ,loh c a sevi olpxe dna

.stnirp egnif

n as h te L flah-eno fo eht enimaxe seirota b l ,stnemucod

tohsnug

redwop/eudiser ,stnirpec ov ,snret ap lacigol cixot selpma

tcudnocr

hpargylo .snoitan m xe The evif crime seirota b l ni

tnes rp eht

era yduts la d n a s e i r o t a "b e cl i v r e s - l u f " yl acit rp enimax

la

smrof fo ecn div detsil evoba e s( elbaT 1. ni eht ~p endix).

yehT

era lacipyt ni tsom taht od ton enimax lacigol cixot sample,

ron

s e op tnirpec ov dna hpargylo .seit l bap c

ezylan ytirojam ehT

e u d i s tr o h n u g dna selpmas enimax

.stnemucod enoitseuq

sdaole c yrota b L

deksa r w seirota b L ot etami se rieht rof sdaole c

radnelac

year 1982. Five rojam seirog tac fo krow ni de f c ps rew

eht

ecn div fo si ylan ;erian o tseuq devir d :morf 1) tneloiv crimes;2)!

;semirc yt epor 3) ;senfogurd )4 gniv rd elihw se ac detacixotni

71
 Table 5.5

PERC NT OF LABOR T IES WHIC EXAMINE VARIOUS

CATEGORIES OF PHYSICAL EVID NCE

n( = 257)

Perc nt of Labor t ies

Type of Evidenc Examin g This Type of Evidenc

Drugs
%39

Sem n 81%

Blo dstains

Fibers

Hairs

Ac el rants

Paint

To lmarks

Firea ms

Glas

1A coh 1

Explosive

Fingerp ints

Documents

Gunshot Residue/Powder Pat erns

Toxic logy

Polygraph

Voicepr nts

 dna 5 ) .rehto elbaT 6.5 a t d a o l e s a c e s ht n e s r p nekorb tuo yb epyt

fo yrogetac emirc dna noitc ds ruj .devres tI nac eb sen

,tah

overal, dnagurd gniv rd d e t a c i x eo lt n hi w (DWI) tnuoc a se c

rof

esolc ot sdriht-ow (64%) fo .sdaolesac to tneloiV

ytrepo dna

semirc etu i snoc %21 dna f o% 5 1 sdaole c ht

.ylevitceps r

gnikaerB sdaole c tuo yb emosla v r noitc ds ruj cif eps

-ni

gnitser t .snret ap While eht

, l a n o i g e r o f d a l e s c m i r tc n e l o v

niam-eta s dna etil etas-eta s seirota b l si e s o ly cr v e ho t

l arevo

egar v (12%), eht tneloiv emirc daolesac for lapic num seirota b l
si

naht re gi yltnacif g s .egareva sihT si ton eht for case eht

-ic num

seit lap fo ,ogacihC dna lkaO have whic tneloiv

yrev sdaole c mir

esolc . e g a r vl n o i t a n e h t o s e i r o t a bl p i c n u M serv rojam

nabru

saer evah ci w eht noitar ecno tsehgi fo tneloiv .emirc tA

eht

rehto ,em rtx eht emirc tn lo v sdaolesac for dna ytnuoc lared f
-obal

yl aitn sbu era seirota rewol naht eht .naem egatn cr p rewol hT
fo

e c n d i v e t a l r - e m i tr nc e l o i v in lared f seirota b l si a
noitcelf r

fo eht larev s Drug tnem crofnE noitar s mdA (DEA) seirota b l

sihtni

hci w elpmas enimaxe drug ecn div .ylevisulcxe County

evr s eit l caf

more laru tneloiv er hw seit num oc nabru sd crime si .s el

ruO

tsom laru ytinum oc )notroM( also sah eht tsehgi caselod,rug

-a

gnit uom ot %76 fo la se ac .denimaxe ytrepo hT crime sdaole c

rof

lapic num and lared f ekam seirota b l pu tuoba htruof-eno fo

rieht

.sdaolesac lato sihT rehgi than egar v egatn cr p fo ytrepo

-emirc

sdnop er c e n div etal r with yl aitn sbu rewol egar v naht DWI

detal r snoi mbus nie on( lared f ) s e i rn o t a r o b a l es ht

f os e p y t

seirota b l de ulcni ni ruo study dnalkaO( and ,)ogacihc tpecx

taht

dnalk O sah a e g a r v n a hrte g i DWI

.daolesac

91
 Table
6.5

B R E A K O U T FO CASELOAD
YB
JURISD CTION SERVED

n( = 1,2349)

Perc nt Caseload yb Jurisd ction

E v i d e n c e Examined

From Dif er nt Muni Co Reg St-M>k St-a* Fed Overal

Crime Categories (values expr s ed in perc ntag s)

Violent Crime 81. 6 13 1 1 7 12

Property Crime 25 6 10 1 13 24
51

Drugs 32 04 41 40 1 5 5
14

DWI 20 36 15 34 18 0 2 3

Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Sta e-Main )M-tS( and Sta e-Satel ite )taS- ( facil t es.

'*" Includes hit-andru, documents, car ying con eal d weapon,

toxicol gy sample , civ l case.

 Drug case ac ount for the largest percentage )%14( of al

laboratories' caseloads. The fed ral laboratories and sta e-satel ite

laboratories responding to the question aire have thehighest percentage

of drugs -- in exces of 50%. Theigh percentage of drugs for fed ral

laboratories is a reflection fo t h em a n y DEA laboratories responding to

our survey. With respect to sta e-satel ite laboratories, many came

into existence during the 1970's primarily to respond to the ne d of

medium to smal sized com unities experiencing a dram tic increase

ni

the drug abuse problem. DWI case also constitute a major portion
fo

crime laboratory caseloads, with county and sta e-main facilities having

the highest percentage (36% and 34% respectively) of such case . When

drug and DWI case are combined we se that practical y thre -fourths of

sta e-main laboratory and county caseloads fal into this category. Our

main state facility (Con ecticut) does not fit this mold in that
ti

examines no drug or DWI case . Such case are examined by a separate

state agency i nC o n e c t i c u t .

We, also, computed the ratio of case examined per scientist for

the laboratories responding to the question aire. These case /examiner

values are displayed in Table ,7.5 broken out by jurisdiction served.

We se that acros the nation, laboratories analyze ap roximately 43

cases per examiner per year. Municipal and county laboratories have the -
highest ratio of cases per examiner. The lowest caseloads are found in

fed ral and main state facil ties.

For our study site laboratories Chicago 025( case /examiner) and

Kansas City 394( case /examiner) have the ighest case per examiner

-r-a t-i-o en o-C dna-s c c - t- i c u 0 4 4 - 1 - ( - t z s - e - s ~ e x a ~ i ~ ) 7 1 h i O Ws e ee S ~T a b ( e 1

,2.3

Chapter .)1 1 Compared with the national averages of comparable labor -

 Table
5.7

CASES PER EXAMINER BY TYPE OF JURISDICTION SERVED

)2891(

Mean Number Mean Number

epy.T of Jurisdiction Case Examined Case /Examiner
)7 91( )2891(

Munic pal

County

Regional 24
9542

Fed ral 02
1281

Mean 34 3
64
 seirot nd oe s a b ( epyt fo noitc dsiruj )devres la fo ruo
etis yduts

snoitacol htiw( eht noitpecx of sa n K )ytiC have ylthgils rewol

esac

sdaol rep
.renimaxe

Technol ~i a
hcraes R dna snoitavon I

deksa er w seirota b L ot yficeps eht tsom

/cif tneics tnacif ngis

secnavd lacigol nhcet ni eht dleif scit lanim rc t s a p e h tn i

evif

.sraey ehT t n e u q et rs fo m se nopser e rht :erew )1( ygol res hcihw(

saw

denoit em yb 60% fo eht ;)stnednopser (2) detalr dna ,sretupmoc -avon i

snoit (14%); d n a (3) r e s a l snoitac lp a ot stnirp eg f (7%) . ,ylrae C

seirota b l e h tv e i l e b ygol res nisecnavd ,sniatsdo lb( ,nem s

etc.)

evah . t n a t r o ps m i n e b e r a s e t i y d u t s l a u d i v rn ui O ni
tnem rga

htiw . n o i t a u l a v es i h t rewsna nI ot eht noitseuq tuoba eht are ni

hci w

er ht ehtsi tse a rg de n rof ,hcraes reht uf 28% fo eht

-rota b l

,niag ,sei detacidni ;ygol res %51 e c a rd t n o i e m si ylan

,tniap(

,s alg ,srebif etc.); dna 13% n o i t a z l u d i v n id e t c fo .riah

ecnO

agin, ruo . s n o i t a
d ns e m o cp esr h t cO u s t r o p u s s e i r o t a b l

revod irav a ediw egnar fo

.seirogetac

yram uS

elihW it si raelc ehtaht dipar nois apxe fo scit lan mirc

-obal

seit l caf yrota fo s ' 0 7 9 1e h t ,de isbu ah n i e s a r c n ei h t eht

rebmun

fo cif tneics len osrep ni es ht seirota b l %05( revo eht tsap

evif

-yea~-s)-an-dth-efr~budjpSS~ncrease ni-176-fo siht same )doirep

sah

.deunitnoc ruO yduts seti era ton tner f id yl aitn sbu

es ht ni

321
 .stceps r The owt ot oitar en fo nrows ot nrows f ats sah
deniamer

ylevita r
.tnatsnoc

Crime denoit s p yliramotsuc era seirota b l withn ecilop

-nega

seic dna yl aus tcir se rieht secivr ot tnem crof wal

.stneilc

They k r o w e s a c e l t o di rof etavirp tuoba ylnod a ,slaudiv n

-eno

driht l iw ecn div la m rcno ezylan .selpmas

yletamixorp ,l arevO

sdriht-ow fo eht sdaole c fo seirota b l are ehtni esn f o saer

fo

, y l g n i d r o c a ; d e t a c i x o ln h w g n i v r d a s g u r d ylno tuoba
driht-eno

are e h tn i lanosrep and emirc yt epor .saera ecnO agin, eht

ytirojam

fo eht study seti selctd rof siht ralim se hcraes tahtni

,yeht

to, tsum htiw dnet oc hig gurd

.sdaolesac

o s le ar w s e i r o t a b L r i e ht u o b ad e k s a
hcraes ni t em vlo ni

dna ot yfitned saer e rg un ti f m .yduts ev il b stned op R

taht

eht tsom stnem c avd tnacif g s ni n hi c r a e s s c i t l a n m i r c

tsap eht

have yrs five ne b the in dleif of .ygol res When deksa wher
yeht

hcraes thguo saw most ned yltnegru ni the ,erut f reply th

,saw

agin, oce .ygol res d e t a c i o s n l s e i r o t a b e hl T tah hcraes was

de n ni dna ,ecn div ecart ni ,ralucit p .riah The

,seirota b l

ega n ,sevl m ht ni elt i htiw ,hcraes s el naht %5 fo f ats

emit

detov ot siht
.ytiv ca
 NOTE

.1 For a complete discus ion of these survey dat , se: Peterson et

,.la )5891( "The Capabilities, Use and Ef ects of the Nation's

Criminalistics Laboratories," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 30,

No. 1, 10-23.

 RETPAHC
IV

FO TCAPMI MORF ECN DIV CISNEROF TRIAL THE S'YENROT A PERSCTIV

noitcud r nI

A rojam dnoces evitc jbo fo siht hcraes tcejorp saw

-ret d eht

noita m fo eht evitaler tcapmi fo cisnerof

noitac duj eht no ecn div

fo lanim rc .se ac oT erolpx siht eus i m o ra ft d e r h t a g w five

:secruos ) 1 dnasrotucesorphtiw sweivr tni syenrot a esn f d ni

eht

xis ew selacol gni maxe r w ni depth; 2) a detubirsd erianotseuq

ot sro uj ni retfa og cihC yeht d e h c ad rh a verdict; 3) survey th fo

crime yrota b l ;srotce id 4) htped-niht study fo 1891 case selif ni

eht xis yduts dna seti 5 ) s e la c i t e h o p y h der tsin mda -ucesorp ot

srot ni .ogacihC sretpahC IV hguor t X tnes rp eht der htag d

yb

each fo es ht hcraes .seig tar s retpahC IX setargetni

sgnid f es ht

and larev s e ucsid ycilop

.snoitac lpmi

d e t s a l s w e i v r utOn i 03 ot 54 setunim dna dewol f derap

tsil

. s n o i t s e u qf o To.eas nosirapm c s i h tf o at d weivr tn with

taht

detn s rp ni rehto ne b sah noitamr fn sretpahc dezinagro gnidroc a

ot

stage fo esac
.noit sopsid

Chargin

,yl aren G srotucesorp des rpx eht noita cepx taht

cisnerof

dluow ecn div eb tna ropmi u ylevita r in nois ced ht gnic eulf
fo

reht w dna how ot a egrahc .esac sme rehT ot eb a heavy

ecnail r

721

Pmding page blank 1

 nopu s n o i t a c f i t n e d si n t i w e y dna stnem ta s y b netfo(
ecilop

)srecif o sa eht si ab rof gni rahc .snois ced ehT

dna ytil b derc

ytil ba er fo eht s entiwey epahs eht s'rotuce p .snoi ced

-esorP

detacidn srotuc dluow yeht ylera elif tsniag segrahc a tnad ef d

fi

. e c n e d i vl ea c i s y h p a w d a h y e h l -
ta tA siht egats fo eht
laic duj

,s ecorp lacisyhp ecn dive si ylegral evitarob c rev n dna

eht

no auq enis e h ft o .nois ced gni rahc a hguo tlA rotucesorp

dluow

yl aus wonk reht w lacisyhp yna n e db a h e c n d i v e detc l o (by

-maxe

e h tg n i ecilop ,)troper era stlu er yrota b l ton yl acip t

elba i va

ta eht emit e ht a h t gni rahc nois ced sah ot eb

.edam

' era ehT howevr, l ew nwo k snoitpecx ot siht .elur ,tsriF

er ht si eht ylevita r esac era a er hw

s a h n o i t a g s e v nd i l a t e d

detluser ni noitac fitnedi ht fo ,tcepsu a eht fo ecnaus i an

tser a

,tnar w dna eht nois eh rp a fo eht .tnadnef d In siht

,noitau s

cisnerof hw sah ecn div detsi a ni gniyf t ed eht tnad ef d

ro

gnihs lbat e stnem l eht fo ,emirc a eht ecn div l iw eb elba i v

ot

eht rotucesorp ta eht emit fo gni rahc eht

.nois ced

The dnoces noitpecx si ro gurd cito ran .se ac es hT semirc

era

denif d yb eht stlu er f o t o n a cd n s e y l a n y r o t a b l eb

deir ac

s r o t u c e s o r p o s , m e ht u o i w d r a w o f l iw e g r a h tc o n tuoh iw eht
-nerof

.ecnedivecis nI , n o i t c d s r u j e n o enraohmt taht sde n ecn dive

ylno

ot eb a dleif" tset detcudnocsi ylan "tik yb a

hci w recif oecilop

s e i f t n e yd li v t p m u s e r p eht .ecnatsbu nI rehto ,snoitc d ruj

-dnef d

stna degrahc with enituor s e n f og u r d yam eb desa ler

,tser a etfa

e lh it n u nac se ylan eb segrahc dna et lpmoc .delif In

a ,ogacihC

l uf yrota b l si ylan si deriuq ta eht yranim lerp gniraeh

ot

esuac elba orp hsilbat e gurd of .se ac evitpmus rP

ton era st e
 detp c a ta siht .egats nI ,noit d a eht ytirev s fo eht egrahc
elas(

su rev elpmis n o p u t s e r y a )m n o i s e s o p a si ylan yrota b l

hcihw

senimr t d eht ytirup yti nauq dna fo eht ecnatsbu ni .noitseuq

dleiF

tset d e r i s n o ce r a s t l u e r tneic f usni ot enif d eht erutan fo a

.esac

d r i h te T epar e a noitpecx se ac er hw er ht si rehti a

noitseuq

reht w tuoba yl autc esruoc etni der uc o ro eht

- a c i f t n e ds i' m t c i v

noit fo .tnalias a eht In eht rem of ,noitau s eht gnid f fo

nem s

yam eb lacit rc ot eht nois ced 'srotucesorp ot ;egrahc ni eht

,ret al

eht yrevocsid f o ni secnatsbu p org do lb eht htiw tne si noc nem s

eht

s'tnadnef d dluow eb .tnatropmi emoS ,seirota b l sa ,elur a do

ton

mrof ep do lb gnipuorg st et no nem s dna a hcus ,yltneuq s oc

-noc

ycneg it si ton a rotcaf ni snoi ced ot .egrahc

er hw selaco rehto nI

eht m r o f e p s o d y r o t a b elm i r c do lb gnipuorg st et on ,nem s it

yam

ekat syad ro ske w ot ylp us eht sgnid f ot eht ;rotucesorp sa

a

,tluser es ht st et y l a u sl i w evah elt i tcef e no eht

gni rahc

.nois ced hguo tlA tsom srotucesorp l iw yas taht fi e u s ie h t ni

a

rape esac si eno fo tnes oc ,sey"( saw er ht ,esruoc tni tub she
saw

) " g ne ih lt i w gnid f fo nem s yam eb .tnavel r i ,rev woH eht

gnid f

fo ,riah ,do lb se iurb ro s t c e j b on e k o r b gnitrop us s'mitciv eht

-res a

noit taht ehs saw decrof ot ega ne ni esruoc etni yam eb yrev
tnatropmi

ni a s'rotucesorp gni rahc

.nois ced

,yl aniF snoi ced ot elif nosra n r u t o s l ya m s e g r a h c on

eht

gnitse yrota b l fo dna sirbed erif eht noitac fitnedi fo

elbam f

sdiuq l ro .selbitsubmoc elihW hcus na si ylan si ton

yletu osba

laitnes rof a gnitrop us egrahc fo ,nosra it nac ylniatrec eb

-ausrep

evis ni gniwohs a erif saw yl anoit e ni set, dna ton

.latnedic a
 Plea Disposit on

We asked prosecutors fi the lab repo t was sought and used ni plea

negotiations. Dif er nces in response merged as a function fo how

readily forensic an lyse are perfo med in a jurisdiction. In Chicago,

wher laboratory esources are lim ted, prosecutors indicated tha

fi

they thoug t they could get a plea withou a laboratory work-up, they

would not requ st one. Inde d, lim ta ions on lab testing in Chicago

and Oakland meant tha certain an lyse are not conducted unles a case

si going to go to trial. Some prosecutors are crit cal fo such def-

er als of laboratory work-ups and char cterize ti as "lazines "

ro

"incompet nce" fo the at orney. Def nse at orneys oftenbeliev the

prosecution "to ' tna culer to requ st an lyse , particularly fi the

- prosecutor su pects the test might exonerate the def nda t. Whatev r

the reason, results are com onlyunav ilable to the prosecutor ro( the

def nse) at the time d cis ons to of er a charge reduction or sentence

recom endation in exchange for a plea of guiltyne d to be .edam Wher

laboratory an lyse are more readily av ilable, prosecutors ind cated

tha they would want to consider pos ible laboratory eports befor

entering plea negotia ons. In Kansa City, prosecutors noted they

would delay the in tiation of plea negotiations until they rec ived

copies of the laboratory repo t. Such evidence can help to establish a

strong, in t al posit on for theprosecutor before entering

negotia ons.

As for the impact of forensic evidence on plea negotiations, prose-

cutors reminde us tha the decis on to of er a charge reduction or

sentencer com endation si det rmined by the overal case. nI making

 eht nois ced ot ref o ,aelp srotucesorp dias taht yeht der isnoc
a

yteirav :srotcafo ytliba va fo ,se ntiw l iks fo eht

s'tnad ef d

reywal dna noita uper h/si gniog rof ot ,lairt s'tnad ef d eht
roirp

droce dna cilbup ,noitcaer if any, to eht ,esac sa l ew e hs ta

htgnerts

fo htiw detaicos a ecn dive eht .esac ecniS ecn dive cisnerof si
trap

fo eht ,esac it sah an ,tcapmi tub sti tcapmi sdnep d nopu eht
rehto

setubir a . e s a c e h ft o ,rev woh ,yl aren G if er ht si cisnerof

-ive

ecn d taht ylgnorts setaicos a eht eht iw tnad ef d crime,

srotucesorp

are s el denilc ot ref o a aelp .niagrab rotucesorp enO

:deton
I

naC I teg noitc v a no ?esac iht mA I gnio ot

eit
pu a mo rt uoc e r h to f ske w dna l its eht esol
?esac
... eno gniht taht you l iw redisnoc e h ts i lacisyhp
,ecn div dna reht w it strop us ruoy .esac dnA fi you

evah ti you t'nod evah ot hsur ot niagr b eht esac

.yaw

ylgnortS ecn dive cisnerof vita cos a yam dael eht esn f d yenrot a
ot

edausrep sih tneilc ot retn a kciuq aelp fo .ytliug er hT si

elt il

hope taht l iw rotucesorp eht ref o yna .snois ecnoc A aelp kciuq
ot

eht na- egrahc nois mda fo s'eno tliug ot eht si- egduj eht
epoh ylno

noitcuder a rof ni
.ecn t es

t c a p me ih T fo eht ecn dive cisnerof ,rev woh ,sdnep on

tnetxe ht

ot hs ct i h w setaicos a si ylan eht htiw tnad ef d eht dna esn f o

eht

tne x ot hci w ti nac eb denialpxe .yawa If, rof ,elpmax

stnirp egnif

have ne b d e i f t n de ai d e t c l o c sa esoht fo eht ,tnad ef dna

eht

tnad ef d sah no rof n saer gnieb ta eht en cs fo eht crime, er ht

is

elt i eht esn f d nac .od ,rev woh ,fI eht

e t a m i g e ls m i a c t e p s u

s ec a ot eht en cs fo a crime, eht noitac fitnedi fo a fingcprint

may-

have elt i .eulav ,ylra im S fi do lb sniats ne b vah

dna ezylan

deif tnedi as gni oleb ot a do lb ralucitrap ,puorg eht esn f d

l iw

131
 erocs dnu ytil b s op eht y e ht a t gnoleb ot somen rehto
e hn ta

.tnad ef d emas hT dluow eb htiw eurt rehto smrof "evisulcno "

fo

e c n d il va ec s y h p sa ,riah fibers, s alg ro .tniap Such cisnerof

-ive

ecn d l iw eb s el evitc f ni gnit c le guilty a aelp ot eht

lanig ro

.egrahc

lairt-e P Discovery

lairt-e P yrevocsid si e r u d c o r pi s a b e h t deyolpm yb

stnad ef

ot gain s ec a ot stnemucod ,strope dna

y b des op ecn div etal r

.noitucesorp eht tI si a now dehsilbatse-l w erud co p ni

le hat

seti we r o fd e i u t s strope yrota b l ot eb made elba i v ot defns

,lesnuoc nopu rieht .tseuq r fI eht sliafes c ot og ot

es ht ,lair

evr s yl aus strope sa lapicn rp eht ecruos fo

noitamr fn ci t e s

desu ni aelp eht snoita gen .s ecorp elihW genraly eht discovery

s d e c o r ps e c o r p lanois c era er ht ,ylhto ms

.smelborp

. roF ,elpmax eht wal si raelcnu reht w a s't i ne cs bench seton

.elbarevocsid era hguo tlA ton ylidaer denrut revo ot esn f d counsel,

fi ,deusr p eht egduj l iw yl amron red o eht rotuces p to a

suply

ypoc ot eht .esnef d nA lanoit d melborp noted yb eno defns

-rot a

yen si "s ol"eht ro "tnem calpsim" fo strope ni xelpmoc .se ac The

dekram yenrot a taht he detbuo ti saw "a ecn di oc taht eht

strope

taht me s ot teg ) l a i r ot i t r s p o ( l are eht seno taht era tsom

-gam d

gni ot ".su dem s o la er hT ot eb noisuf c tuoba

esr v "

hci w ,"yrevocsid selbane eht rotucesorp ot gain s ec a ot strope

ni

eht sdnah fo eht .esn fed hguo tlA ti sref id jurisdcton fm

o t --

,noitc ds ruj it sraep taht r e d y ao m s e g d u j it, fi eht prosecutin

132
pos es ed the evidence in the first place, and was required to turn
ti

and ac ompanying reports over to def nse who then had further

examinations performed on .ti Such a pos ib lity wil deter some de-

fense counsel from se king their own exp rt for a second opinion about

the evidence. Confirmation of the prosecution's experts' findings by a

defense expert is expected to be particularly devasting to a case.

Defense counsel are also sometimes reluctant to pursue an area,

such as scientificevidence, to ag res ively prior to trial for fear

that ti wil "tip their hand" to the prosecution about their principal

defense strategy. Other at orneys as ert such an explanation is merely

an excuse for not being as wel prepared as one should be to defend a

client.

In our study sites def nse counsel indicated to us that they found

laboratory examiners "ac es ible" for asking questions about reports.

Howev r, theynoted that if their questions began to go beyond

clarification of a point, tha examiners might not co perate unles the

prosecutor gives his permis ion to do

.os

Trial

We inquired into prosecutors' beliefs about judge and jury respon-

se to the presentation of forensic evidence at trial. Before discus-

sing thes results, we first pres nt datawhich indicate the fraction of

trials in which forensic experts actual y tes ify.

 slairT trepxE dna

ynomitseT

hguo tlA dat era ton avilbe l a rof ron sraey la

-cids ruj

,snoit wear elba ot trope eht ycneuq rf tah strepx morf

eht

and Peori Chcag, sa n K City emirc seirota b l deif ts ni truoc

ni

eht raey 1981.(1) ehT se ac de ulcni ni siht discuon esoht ra

se ac

gnitu s oc ruo e rs oa tc u e s o r p file devlos r w hci w elpmas

ta

lairt e s( retpahC
.)vI

Ther era few sdnert y r ah c i w morfevo noitc ds ruj ot

-siruj

dicton; , rs e d a uc m exampl, for era ton ylmrofinu eht epyt fo

esac

wherxpts y l r a ut gs eo m y f i t s e e S( elbaT 6.1). The esab value

for es ht snoitalub si eht lato rebmun fo slairt rof hcae

esn f o

in category . e l p m a sr u o ehT( value ni se htn rap ni hcae l ec

-erp

sent eht number f o

a ni g tluser snef o delpmas r ucit ap esoht

).lairt Uperand rewol segatn cr p ni hcae e th n s e r p l e c

-wol f

:gni p oeth value si eht tnecr p fo slairt one whr ro more

srenimax

tesify; mot b eh value si tnecr p eht fo gnitluser sac in a

lairt

and ecn div r hw si denimax tah n i se f t osla tsi ne c a

.truoc

Forexampl, ni yralg ub se ac ni sa n K City, yfitse r nimaxe ni

%9

fo o g h c i w s e a yc r l g u b a ot tub lairt ni %3 fo
er hw slairt hcus

evidnc si
.denimaxe

All fo eht Peoria gnio snoituce rp d um ot lairt )4( tluser

ni

, g n i y f t s er n i m a x while ylno 4% fo eht 47 red um ogacihC

-ucesorp

snoit have .ynomitser pxe nI ,airoeP 12% fo

tpme a ht

snoituce rp y etdab v rg / ed um goin l a i r ot have

strepx

in tesfy; es ht lairt wher case, ecn div cif tne s is ,denimax an

seif t r pxe ni sret auq-e rht fo .se ac nI Chicago, no e e h ft o

94
 Table
1.6
Trials and Testimony

(perc ntages)

City

Crime
Type Peoria Chicago Kan City

Murder

At. ~urder/
Ag. Bat.

Rape

Burglary

Theft

Rob ery

Drugs
 tpme ta detav rg / ed um snoitucesorp y et ab gnio ot lairt evah
a

trepx yrota b lemirc

.yfitse

tpecxE rof Chicago yrev ra e ht wef separ hci w are devlos r

ta

.lairt nI eht 25 rape ns il a r t ,ogacihC 3 (12%) nitluser trepx

. y n o m i t s e r e t a u q -s eo nm l A fo slairt y lgrub airoeP have

trepx

,ynomitse tub eno fo s'ogacihC .od sa n K nI only Cit, %9 fo

-rub

e v l o n si a ry t l g trepx ,ynomitse tub fo es ht er hw slairt

eht

senimax yrota b l evidnc, %3 nt il u s e r .ynomitse r pxe

trepxE

ynomitse ni tfeht modles ac :sruc o ni ylno %5 e fh ot slairt

ni

Peoria, tub eno fo eht slairt ni ogacihC ro sa n K .ytiC hguo T few

ni

robey num, e t ar h g i y l t h g i s a e v h s n o i t u c e r p fo
trepx

ynomitse ni and Peori sa n K City, tub ni eno fo ogacihC eht

.slairt

sA d e v r s b wo ni emirc ht fo ecn div r hw ,yralg ub si denimax

ni

seir b o whic og ot ,lairt eht do hilek fo trepx ynomitse

-ni

larev s e a rc
.dlof

Dat are ton avilbe rof eht ecnar p fo

gurd ni sre max

snoituce rp .ogacihC gurd hguo T slairt ni t euq rfnia Peoria

and sa n K City, we se tah gurd st imehc raep ni 5 fo 7 fo such

slairt ni Peoria, tub ylno 1 fo 4 s l a i r gt u d ni Kans

.ytiC

fI we etag r la esn f o sepyt niht w hcae we jurisdcton,

dnif

tah yrota b lemirc yfitse . strepx ni 23% f o eht 74 slairt ni Peoria,

13% f o eht 56 sanK nislart City dna ylno 2% fo eht 273 slairt ni

.ogacihC tuB rates inc fo gniyf tse yldekram y v yb

epyt snef o

and ,noitc ds ruj ti si very tlucif d ot .ezilar n g tI si

,tnerap

,hguo t tah ti si raf more yleki taht na trepx wil

a ni yf tse

lairt ni n o i t c d s r u j o l p s ae l ekil Peoria naht ni a suol p

eno

wher Chicago, like trepx ynomitse si a any for aity epyt fo

.lairt
 elihW it si tlucif d ot tniop eht
g n i c e u l f sn ri o t c a f r l u c i t r a p

es ht ylediw tner f id ,setar yeht are ylba orp detal r ot eht emulov
fo

se ac hci w htob secaf yrota b l and s'rotucesorp secif o ni

-fid eht

.snoitc dsiruj tner f morF evitc psre yrota b l ni Chicago, emit

ni

truoc si emit yaw morf eht hcneb er hw golkcab ecn dive si a

cinorhc

;melborp eht rotuces p osla sah a hig emulov fo gnid ame se ac

-net a

and tion eh must do eh l a to can etid pxe .wolfesac gnil aC strepx

ot

gnirud yfitse slairt swol nwod s ecorp siht

detaicos naem dna

len osr p ecilop ohw del nah l iw ecn dive ht evah ot eb del ac
.osla

tI si more far ,suoit depx tub ton ylbis op sa ,evitc f ot

ecudortni

eht yrota b l troper htiw( eht fo ecn r u oc eht d n at r u o c

esn f d

)lesnuoc eht gniz ram us s'trepx

.sgnidnif

laic duJ Evalution

tpecxE for ylraen ,ogacihC al eht slairt taht ruc o ruo ni study

yruj e a snoitc d ruj ,slairt not hcneb .slairt Thus,

srotuce p

ekam dluoc few tuoba skrame se nop r laic duj ot cisnerof ecn dive
dna

strepx presntd, tub esoht taht

secn r f id gnitser mos det n di

ni noita es rp eht fo lacisyhp ecn div hcnebta dna jury

.slairt

Presntaio fo stlu er cif tne s ot a judge si more denilma rts

naht

ot a .yruj fI eht judge si rail m f trepx htiw dna eht ecn div
ot

eb presntd, gniyf lauq eht viaw yl aus liw ehs/ fo

trepx ht

and wites e rga ot a stipulaon fo eht yrota b l .stluser

ehT

trepx si ton deriuq ot .yfitset strepxE are ton desu ot yrt

ot
- -serpmI judges, ohw are erom senitv ot srotcaf h us sa eht ned
rof

and spe ymon ce ni gnit es rp eht s'eta s .esac

yenrot a enol itS
warned tha prosecutors should not downplay forensic evidence simply

because the case si being heard yb a judge. He believ d a judge wil

take the sta e' case "more seriously" if the prosecutor pres nt physi-

cal evid nce.

When exp rts are cal ed, ther si the beli f tha judges may
eb

more discrim nating and crit cal fo forensic testimony than a jury would

.eb Compared with a "novice juro , experienced judges wil have had

the op ortunity to hear numerous exp rts testify on previous oc asion .

Such rep ated exposure enable judges to evaluate bet r the strength of

the evidence and the tes imony fo an exprt. In fact, some prosecutors

noted tha certain judges can becom quite crit cal of labor t y per-

son el and urge tha theyb come "more prom t and more profes i nal".

If an at ck fo forensic evidence si a key el m nt of the def nse's

overal trial strategy, then def nse at orneys beli ve, strategical y,

the case should be tried befor a jury. Judges are not thought to be as

persuade by intense cros examinations fo forensic exp rts as are

juries wher only one confused or doubting juro can result ni a

mistr al.

Jury Evaluation

Prosecutors are unshaking in their beli f tha juries are very

impres d by physical evid nc . One prosecutor rema k d:

The more physical evid nce the betr. I likephysical

evidence no mat er what kind of case ti .si Juries like

p-hysi c alevi dence,-T s e i-t men i-a-l-evi-den c og- e e s t h ro -hgu h ~ i r

fingers. Physical evid nce does .ton Physical evidence can

ap roach the s nse fo thejury other than the

sense of hearing. I want t h e j u r y t ou s e al fo their

sense , not just one ro .owt If the jury can se a

.44
Magnum, they get a much bet r fe ling for what a
4.
 Magnum si al about than fi they simply hear someone

talking about
.ti

Ther si the b lief tha juries "love to play ' evitce d and physi-

cal evid nce ful i s tha desir . The impact fo physical evid nce on a

jury may be sum ed up by the fol wing four points:

Forensic evid nce si inter sting and helps ot "jaz things

up" ( l a r g e l yb c a u s e ti makes the trial se m more like a

tel vis on
.)wohs

The evid nce si physical y pres nt for the juro s to se and

evaluate for themslv.(2) And furthe , this evid nce can

be taken back into the jury rom.

The evid nce si not subject to human emoti n and is ther fo e

les like y to be distor e . Eyewitnes can be inac urate

and tes imony may be wrong, tub juro s rega d physical

evidence as trus worthy. One prosecutor com ented tha fi he

had ot cho se b twe n pres nti g a fingerp int and an

ey witnes sta em nt to a jury, he would alw ys go with the

fingerp int.

Prosecutors also beli ve tha physical evid nce can help "anchor

their case, by shoring up the tes imony fo other witnes es and,

rightly or wrongly, ad ing credib lity to the entire .esac This

can reliev some of the burden felt by juries in making the

decis on fo guilt or in oce .

Forensic evid nce can eb a two-edg sword, howev r, in tha juries

sometimes exp ct to much from the forensic evidnc. "We fight

.V.T

al the . .emit Quincy has given us a bad run," remarked one prosecu-

.rot Juries may eb disap ointed tha the forensic evidence di not

yield more conclusive information and surmise tha the prosecution has

failed tm oa k e its case. Prosecutors are most con er d, howev r, about

case in which forensic evidence si absent. As one as i tan distr c

-
at-orney
:d eton

I haven't had juries hang up because they ad it

(physical evidnc), but I have had juries hang up

because t h e r 'nsah be n any physical evidencewhen

they felt tha ther should

.eb
31 9

 fI esac si lacisyhp gnikcal ecn div srotucesorp semit o

le f

detagilbo ot srecif ol p ac ro strepx cisnerof ot eht

s entiw

stand ot yhw nialpxe ti si .tnesba nI red um eno lairt erof b a jury,

srotagi evn wer del ac ot yfitse ot nialpxe eht ecn sba fo

-nif

a m o r fs t n i p e g letom er hw mo r eht s'mitc v saw ydob .dnuof The

t a h t deif s t repx eht ecn sba fo saw stnirp na noitac d

m o re h t

ne bdah " n a ed l cp i w " fo ,stnirp ton tsuj esoht fo eht

.desuc a

The tnemyolp fo s e r u d c o r pe yb emirc scen ,srotagi evn also,

can eb critaly
:tnatropmi

fI I aveh ,tnirp eg a f s'taht .enif fI I

t'nod
have tnirp eg a f s ' t a nh et ton so .enif tuB
fi
on one der htob nev ot ko l rof
,tnirp eg f a
s'tah ne t wher you
.ref us

Comprehnsi
Jury

are Prosecut fo feil b eht taht era s iruj quite elbap c

fo

lacisyhp gnid atsre nu and cif tne s .ecnedive sA l iw eb

ni de alpx

eht txen chapter, lacir pme ht dat der htag w morf

sro uj la tc

siht rop us .feileb ,s el ht noN eht ytil b sneh rpmoc fo na exprt's

ynomitse si ton simply n o i t c au f fo eht s't i ne cs cisnerof

-kaeps(

)gni skil, tub also e fh ot l iks dna oitar pe fo eht

:rotucesorp

ehT question ytil b sneh rpmoc f si ,etacir n

tub
t'nsi realy a .melborp sA I ,rotuces p a have
ot
dnatsre u i t eht( cisnerof ;)ecnedive neht
ti
si myresponiblt ot se
ot
ti tah eht jury sdnat re u it. fO course, fi
eht
trepx can sih teg tniop s orca ot eht jury,
taht
seta il c f eht
.s ecorp

Prosecut ev il b taht juries era erom elbatrofm c formswith

fo

lacisyhp evidnc rail m f ot meht hcus( sa )stnirp egnif and,

-mis

041
 er hw ecn div ,ylra i an trepx nac an mke tnem a s elbacoviuqen
fo

:ytniatrec ehT" dna ,tnad ef on ,nosrep hto tfel eht tnirp eg f

ta

eht emirc
".en cs

evi cr p srotuce P sro uj e bo t s el

, e c n d i vh t w e l b a t r o f m c

hair, s suqh e h rt w ynomitse of strepx ,si fo more

necsity,

evitc jbus and s el .etulosba er hT ,si ,osla nrec o tuoba

- m o ce h t

ytlib sneh rp fo sniatsdo lb dna e c n d i v el a c i g o l i br e h t o er hw

stlu er

era yliramotsuc detn serp ni cits liba orp .smret ,t sa ih T

t r e p x eh t

rev n ac stae, ,yl acoviuqen taht a niatsdo lb saw dehs yb a

-citrap

ralu ;nosrep ylno taht eht dna niats denoits uq eht do lb fo eht
desuc a

niat oc eht same sepyt fo citen g srek am e s hdtn a era tnes rp ni

"x"

tnecr p fo the
.noitalupo

srotuce P noted, ,o t taht if noita nes rp eht fo

cif tne s

ecn div si l a c i n h eot ro lacoviuqe e h dt n a secudortni es f d

sti

trepx nwo who sref o a tner f id noita erp ni fo eht dat,

ehtaht

yl ato em c bya ecn div cisnerof .detacsufbo nI situaon,

such

dluow srotuce p juros anticpe gnidra e s ylbis op eht

cif tne s

dna reht go la ecn div gnisab rieht nois ced rehton ni srotcaf
eht

.esac

Defns
segn l ahC

d e r i u Wq n otni how rednu a netfo tahw

esn f d secnat mu ric

cisnerof ht egn l ahc syenrot a .ecn dive ehT tsrif

se ira ytinu rop

gnirud lairt-e p lesnuoc esn f d er hw sgniraeh yraitned v yam

tpme a

t-o-have-phy s-i-c
e-1 ~ * ned-iv 1 a d-nzdmisi1t o r ge nu dsthx-iri s ,

1) eht tcudorp fo an lage i and search ;eruzi s ro )2 taht sah er ht

be n a break in the chain of custody of the evidence. Prosecutors and

defense at orneys, alike, agre such at empts are rarely suc es ful.

Table 6.2 displays our dat from the prosecutor case file sample

describing the frequency with which defense counsel filemotions to

sup res physical evidence in theands fo the prosecution and their

suc es in having ti exclude . Defense counsel elif such motions from a

high of 26% of c a s e s i nN e w Haven to a low of 3% of cases in Kansas

City. Such filings are suc es ful, ,.e.i the evidence is excluded, in

an extremely smal percentage of the time -- from 2% of case inChicago

to 0% of cases in Kansas City and Litchfield. These results are tem-

pered by the fact that the result of t h em o t i o n s to sup res could not

be determined from the case files in from about one-half to two-thirds

of the cases where motions were filed.

A second op ortunity to chal enge forensic evidence oc urs at

trial. The defense at orney can chal enge the competency of the expert

witnes when the trial court makes its review of the witnes ' qual-

if cations. Customarily, defense at orneys do not employ this strategy

with most examiners from the crime laboratory since these experts'

credentials have already be n ac epted by the trial court on previous

oc asions.

The defense may chal enge the forensic evidence by introducing its

own expert, but this is rarely done.

...w e can't af ord it. And if our client is tel ing us in

confidence that he did it, then we t'nac real y justify

spending a lot of money chal enging something that we know

is probably true.

The typical $50 /day for testimony and $150/hour for examinations

means that most public defender of ice's budgets can ot withstand such

 Table
6.2
MOTIONS TO SUP RES EVID NC *

(in perc nt fo al case sampled)

Jurisd ction

Chicago Oakl nd Kan City Peoria New Haven Litch

Moti n to Sup res ~ 9 9 8 n=95 n494 nt1057 n=4 2
432 1

Yes 1 13 3 5
62 7

Granted

toN, Granted

Unk own

N o 98 8 7 79 95 74 3
9

*columns may not ad to 10 % due to r undi g er o s

 exp nse - exc pt under the most extraordinary condit ons. Public

def nders have the option of going befor the court to peti on for a

special budgetary al owance to permit such tes ing, but most judges are

not incl ed to grant such requ st .

Most def nse chal enges oc ur by means of cros -examination of the

prosecution forensic exprt. During cros -examination the def nse may

at empt ot obfuscate the is ue , and make the an lysi se m extrem ly

complex. Def nse counsel wil imply tha no one can trus or real y

understand test fo such complexity. Prosecutors respond with a re-

direct examination to clarify the situa on. As one def nse at orney

sta ed, he tries to "ac entua e the inher t lim ta ions

fo

proba lis tic evidnc." Prosecutors gen ral y fe l tha thes def nse

tactics are uns c es ful. If, howev r, the forensic evidence involves

an interp eta ion fo forensic evidence, rather than simply an an lysi

of a substance, the cros -examination may eb used suc es ful y to intro-

duce other points of view and alternative explan tions. In this situa-

tion, t h ed f e n s e simply tries to explain aw y the physical evidnc.

As a prosecutor noted:

The def nse doesn't dispute the facts of the physical

evidence, tub at empts to explain why the fingerp int

was ther ro how theblo d could have got en on the

. trihs ..

Former prosecutors are thoug t to be the best in conducting this type

fo

cros -examin t on since they have past experience with the crime lab and

understand how other interp eta ions are inde d pos ible.

A£em-lani t h o U ed-ehk-yb-de Eens cuder-o-t-e e-thimpaz t-of o ren~-~c-

evidence si to have it admit ed through stipulation. Using this pro-

 ,erud c eht truoc l iw ehtp c a yrota b l trope sa eht ecn dive

dna

na l iw trepx . y f i t s eo tn gnikcaL eht am rd of na

gniyf tser pxe

no eht s entiw stand, ti sward s el noit e a ot eht cif tne s

-ive

.ecned Defns lesnuoc yas such euqinhc t a nac neka w

eht

ylra ucit p ,esac 'noituces rp wher eht gni amer s' ta key
-sentiw

se era fo r e t c a hl r o m e l b a n o i t s e u q dna kcal

.ytil b derc

reht W ton ro ot etalupi s ot yrota b l strope si an

gnitser

lacit a tse noc ne wt b rotuces p and esn f d .yenrot a fI

yrota b l

stlu er era n e h t , g n i t a m r yc ln hi g eht defns l iw ref p yeht

eb

noitalup s hguor t de im a dna yl ufepoh have

. y r u j e h t n o c a p sm i e l

The noituces rp tsum deci how laicur siht ecn div o st i reh/sih
esac

dna fi eht ecnar p e fh ot trepx si htrow eht secruo ,emit

dna

.trof e fI eht ecn div si yletar dom or

n e h t , g n i t a ym l r c n i g a

eht noituces rp l iw yl aus ref p ti eb der tne

.noitalup s hguor t

The yenrot a esn f d tsum deci if he nac score de a stniop with

a

yruj yb gnivah eht trepx yfitse and ynomitse ht gnikcat

e h tr o f e b

.yruj

suoirav deksa W defns lesnuoc ni ruo yduts seti if yeht

-rep

denoits uq yl anos eht ycaru fo se ylan cisnerof

- e s o r p y db e t n s e r p

ni srotuc .noitc dsiruj ieht Practily la ,syenrot a esn f d

cilbup

dna yeht dias ,et virp wer deifs ta taht detn serp stlu er ht yb
eht

laco seirota b lemirc acurtew dna srenimax ht

.laitr pmi

s en vitc f E fo
strepxE

--
--
deralc y lasrevinu srotuce P taht s en vitc f e ht fo a
-nerof

cis trepx sdnep rieht no skil ni gni o tseuq .s entiw eht

yehT

541
 thoug t tha unles a prosecutor understands the forensic evid nce,

he/she can ot knowhow to incorporate ti into the prosecuti n's case,

can ot know the questions ot ask to bring tuo the tes imony ef ctively

and understandably and can ot protec ro re- stablish the exprt's

testimony ni the re-dict. One prosecutor rema ked :tah fI" ther

was something tha I di n't understand, then proba ly the jury wouldn't

understand ti eith r, and only after talking to the crim nalist for

hours and hours ]di [ I begin to real y understand what was going
on.''

While prosecutors us al y se ti as their responsib lity to pre a the

exp rt for court, they say the scient s also has the responsib lity
ot

avoid to much techni al jargon a d to reduce complex facts to simple,

understandable terms.

Pre-t ial confer nces betwe n prosecutors and scientist area

com on method employed to achiev bet r understanding of the evidnc.

Our survey of crime laboratories found such face-to me tings oc ur

in slightly more than lf the case wher an exp rt tes if es. Wher

the prosecutor is unfamil ar with the xpert, a particular technique or

form fo evidence, he/she si l i k e y vt io s t h e s c i e n t s in his/her own

labor t y. More com nly, thoug , confer nces wil be held over the

tel phone ro in ni the cor idors of the c o u r t h o u s e ,m i n u t e s befor an

exp rt si scheduled to tesify. Whatev r the nature fo the me ting, the

purpose si the same: to ensure tha the scient s wil be pres nti g

the expected results and wil be able to explain the results ni a way

tha is understandable to the jury.

Prosecutors judged tha the fol owing at ributes increased the

--

ef ectiven s of an exp rt witnes :

o Examiners ne d go d s c i e n t i f c c r e d n t i a l s ,w h i c h includes

ap ropriate education, train g, and publicat ons.

 o E x a m i n e r s s h o u l d a p e a r c o m f o r t a b lw eh i l e tes ify ng.

Juro s may confuse anxiety with uncertain y about their

tes imony.

o Experts should deliver their tes imony ni a straightforwa d,

unemoti nal and confident maner. They must also dres

profes ional y, employ ev ryda langu e (while avoid ng

techni al jargon) and direct their tes imony to the jury.

o Their testimony should eb based upon sound scientif c

procedur s, as substantiated by completwrit en repo ts

and a documented chain of evid nc .

o They should be wil ng to give an opin on about the

signif cance of their an lyse . They should not volunte r

testimony, tub only respond to questions asked of them.

o Examiners should not argue with def nse counsel, tub permit

the prosecutor to ad res any ap rent inco si tenci s

ni
the vidence during re-dict examin t on.

Ther also si consensu among the crim nal def nse bar tha other

at ributes influence the ef ctiven s fo an exp rt witnes :

a tol fo ti turns on things tha ti shouldn't turn

eht. .no personality fo the exp rt ...how go d he lo ks

to the .yruj If the guy l o k sg o d and sounds go d

and talks to them in a langu e they can understand,

theywil be impres ed by
.mih

Ther si lit e doubt tha def nse counsel fe l ta a d i s a d v a n t a g ew h n

it comes to using scientif c result , and are somewhat embit er d by the

wil ing es fo juries to ac ept the prosecution's exp rt tes imony on

such a superfic al basi sa the exp rt's ap ear nce ro convincing man-

.ren Nonethel s , the impact fo the exprt's style can eb turned oc-

casional y to the advantage fo the d f nse.

I have se n juries disregard the testimony

fo
a qualif ed exp rt who was proba ly cor ect because

the exp rt was a jerk on the stand. He used big

T O P - aw-dna sd g-s e-ne r a-1-ly-an-a-s-sIh-ey-c-antur ra

jury of andwhen the jury si turned of the ars

go of a n d t h me i n d s g o of and they wil ignore

whatev r the guy say.

Overal Evaluation of Forensic Evidence

The importance at ached to forensic evidencevaries as a function

fo type fo case, type fo evidence and indiv dual prosecutor's pers c-

tive. Forensic evidence si regarde sa more importan , and si more

likely to be gather d and an lyzed, in violent crimes thanproperty

crimes. Yet its importance ven i nv o l e n t crimes si af ected by other

aspects of the case. For instance in a rape case, fi the def nse
si

going ot revolve around the is ue of conse t, the av ilabil ty of foren-

sic evidencehas lit le value. Forensic evidence si also regarde

sa

more importan fi the an lysi conclusively as ociates the def nda t

with the of ens . Thus, fingerp ints are more highly regarde than

blo d group an lyse . Final y, prosecutors se m to div de into two

groups in their personal evaluation fo forensic evid nc . Those in the

first group rema k tha they are always delighted with forensic evi-

denc. They find other types fo evid nce, at some lev , open to ques-

tion or su pic on, but forensic evidence is "alw ys truswohy." Those

in the second group are les enamoured fo forensic evid nc . In their

opin on ti acts as cor ob ration for other types fo evid nc . tI si the

glue tha binds other evidence toge h r, not thek ystone fo the
.esac

Overal , forensic evidence si regarde as as importan as any other type

fo evidence, and by some indiv duals and in some situations, as more

importan than any other.

 NOTES

Save Kans for City and the Peoria )notroM( laborties whic ,

with the as i t nce fo a computerizd man ge t informat

s y t e m r, c a o n d tabule t ah pe r n o c f sti examinrs in

court, most jurisdcton do ke p s u c h i n f o r m a t ni a

readily ac es ibl .mrof One must consult the laborty case

file, whic n a n o t a im y eb made when an examin rctual y

tesif ni .truoc Other imes, thexaminr him or hers lf

may eb consulted and asked ot recal fi ehs/ tesifd ni a

particul
.esac

.2 A corlay this si belifth tah e v i dw h n c involes

pictures or charts si most he fctiv fo al.


R EIT PVA H C

THEFROM VIDNC OF RENSIC MPAT S'RO UJ PERSCTIV

Introduci

Both eht directos fo and lbortiescm lairt atorneys

-rofni

med sutah evidnc forensic saw afecting

pruly imotan

eht dispotn fo a crimnal esac ta eht lairt stage ot fh e

lanim rc

justice .s ecorp sA an examinto fo Table 7.1 show , laborty

directos png ruo t informed suvy su tah evidnc

fors

mostwa t a n tropmi lairt and ni thecorbaing tnem vlo i

fo

supect in .semirc views Thesimlar fo lairt atorneys wer presntd

ni precding th .retpahc Despit siht percivd motan fo forensic

evidnc ta trial, elt i si about knw how understa

wl jo

. evidnc,fors how their novdc fs irpate hy

decisonmakg or eht weight ti comparedivs ot other sepyt

fo

presntd vic
. l a i tr

Respont ruo survey suget andirvw tah crime

-obal

directosay yam eb s l juros'cmpehniabtv

fo

evidncfors naht are prosecuting .syenrot a sA noted in the

previous chapter, prosecut thguo higly fo abiltyhe f oe h t jury

ot understafoiclz .ecn div As Table 7.2 demonstra,

howev r, examinrs foc rate juros as having oly

- r e d "n u i a f

standig fo eht signfcae fo result. aboy lA crimnal

othe
--

personl, juticym tpecx police frs and adminstro,

are rated sa having a ofunderstaigb such .slairet m In

siht
 elbaT
7.1

ECNATROPMI FO CISNEROF ECN DIVE NI

LANIM RC EHT

S ECORP ECITSUJ
(n = 256)

f o ecnatropmI

ecn divE cisneroF
egatS ni lanim rC s ecorP ecitsuJ )eulavnaem( 9:

gni mret D if emirc sah ne b det im oc

2.3
gnid vorP evitag sevni sdael
2.6

tnem vlo nig tarob roC fo stcepsu

3.0

stnem ta s gniyf reV fo

/smitc v

se ntiw/stcepsu

gnid ceD ot egrahc a tcepsu

2.7
gnid ceD ot tnarg ,liab lairterp esa l r
1.5
aelP gni agr b
2.4

lairT

gnic et S
1.7

" sgnitaR of ecnatropmi degnar morf (1) l a m i n m ot ( 4 ) .laitnes e

 Table
7.2

USER UNDERSTANDING OF SIGNIF CANCE

OF LABORATORY RESULTS

n( = 253)

Understanding the

Signif cance of

Laboratory Result

(mean value) *

Police Investiga ors

2.2

Prosecutors

Def nse At orneys

Judges

Police Of icers

Police Admin strators

Juro s

" Ratings ranged from )1( very go d understanding to )5( very

po r understandi g.

 chapter we pres nt dat gather d from juro s themselves about their

perceptions of their understanding and util zation fo forensic and other

types fo evid nc .

Method fo Ap roach

The Chief Judge fo the Crim nal Courts in Co k County, Il inois

gave us permis on to undertake an examination fo the impact fo forensic

evidence on juro decis on making. We wer al owed to ask juro s to

complet question aires (se Ap endix )4.I X ta the close of trials and

after they had be n discharged yb the trial court judge. Because of

Co k County's ,yad-eno" one-trial" policy, juro s are not required to

sit for more than one trial ta any one time. Juro s impanel d to

hear a case are also discharged ta the end fo one

.yad

Each fo the thirty crim nal court judges sit ing in t h me a i n crim-

inal courts complex was contacted as we rec ived notif cationhe or she

was about to begin a jury trial. We asked permis ion of the judge, and

often prosecutor and def nse at orney, to admin ster the question aires

to the juro s ta the close fo the trial. With few exceptions, most

judges and at orneys wer agre able to our .nalp Wher ver pos ible, a

me ber fo the project staf would sit through the trial and the pres-

enta ion fo evidence by the prosecution and def nse. Staf lim ta ions

and logist cal problems (two trials proce ding simultaneously) often-

times prev nted us from achieving this objective, howev r. Fol owing

the delivery and ac eptance of the jury's verdict, the judge would

introduce a me ber fo our res arch staf . The stafme ber would ask

the juro sto take a f e wm o e n t s to complet the brief, ano ymous

 ,erian o tseuq ot laes it na ni pord na epol vn it a ni

r i e h x tn o b

yaw tuo fo
.mo rt uoc eht

sro uJ also wer eht nevig optin fo

emoh erian o tseuq ht gnikat

htiw meht dna gnil am ti k c na ib a egatsop diap .epol vne sro uJ

er w

erom enorp ot tcel siht retfa noitp detcar o p snoitareb l d ro

fi

yeht dehca r rieht tcidrev etal ni eht

.gni ev

ehT
se aC

nI detubir s d ew ,l a eht serian o tseuq ot 372 srouj ni 13

ynolef .slairt eW devi c r kcab 290 detlpmoc questionar, hci w

esnop a r stne rp etar fo yletamixorp 78%. tuobA 80% f o eht

d e t l p m o cr w s e r i a n o t s e u q yb eht sro uj ni eht dna mo rt u c 20%

e d i s t u o d e t l p m o cr w eht mo rt u c dna hguor t den u r eht .liam

nI

,l a ew detca noc sro uj ni 1 sred um case, 7 detpm a murdes, 3

l a u x e st a i v e d / s p a r ,stlua 4 ,seir b o demra 2 sale fo del ortn c

,secnat bus 1 ,yralg ub 2 detpm a sno ra dna 1 lufwa n use fo

.snopaew ehT e r a s e i r o g t a cd e n i m e v o b a eht tsom suoire fo eno

ro

erom tsniag del v segrahc .tnadnef d eht elbaT 3.7 sumarize

eht

rebmun fo nekorb ,denrut serian o tseuq down yb crime epyt and

tuo
.emoc

sA elbaT 7.3 ,setacidn eht ytirojam taerg fo stnad ef ( 8 1 % ) er w

dnuof .ytliug nI eht 25 stnadefrhw seac guilty, foundwer 24 f o

meht ytliug dnuofer w fo tsom eht esn f o suoire whic t

er w yeht

.degrahc

gni rec oC eht sro uj ,sevl m ht 54% wer elam f and 46% .elam

yletamixorp A 28% f o eht sro uj l ef niht w eht 18-29 agern; 20%

 Table 7 . 3

Juror Responses: Offense Case Outcome

Host Serious Number of Convictions/ Number of % of

Offense Charged Trials Non-Convictions Juror R e s p . Total

(1) Murder 11 9/2 98 34%

(2) Attempt Murder 7

(3) Armed Robbery 4 4/0

( 4 ) Rape/Dev Sex A s s l t 3 2/1 32 11%

( 5 ) Cntrlled Substnce 2

(6) Attempt Arson 2

(7) WU 1

(8) Burglary 1 1 /O 5
%2

Total 31 25/6 290 100%

wer betwe n the ages of 30 a n d 3 9 ; 16% f r o m 40 t o 4 9 ; 29% f r o m 50 t o 64

%7 were 56 or older. In other words, about half of our juror sample was

under the age of 40. This is the extent of personal dat we wer able

to col ect about juro s. The unit of an lysi employed in this chapter

is the indiv dual juro .

Comprehension of Forensic Evidence

In order to as es whether jurors understo d the forensic evidence

pres nted, we first had to ascertainwhether some type of physical

evidence ,.g.e( fingerprints, weapons, phot graphs, blo dstains,

chemical an lyse , ).cte had be n introduced at trial. About 93% o f the

jurors responded in the af irmative, cit ng most often the introduction

of phot s, fol owed by weapons related evidence (guns, bul ets, knives),

biol gical evidence (blo dstains, sem n) and chemical-related evidence

(drugs, ac el rants). Consistent with the lowsuc es rate inChicago

in being able to use fingerprints to as ociate a def ndant with an

of ense (se Chapter ,)VI fingerp int evidence was not introduced in any

of the trials.

Juro s were asked how wel theyundersto d the physical evidence

compared to other types of evidence. Thirty-one percent reported they

understo d ti bet er thanother evidence, %56 percent said they under-

sto d ti about as wel as the other evidence, and only %4 said they

understo d thephysical evidence les wel than other types of evidence.

When the results of thisquestion about juror understanding of physical

evidence are cros -tablu ated by the types of forensic evidence

-ni

troduced, we find that jurors se m to have a bet er than average under-

751
 gnid ats fo ecn divelacigol ib ,sniatsdo lb( )nem s dna a re o p
naht

gnid atsrednu egar v fo ecn dive lacimehc ,sgurd(

.)selbam alf

evital R ecnatropmI fo
ecn divE cisneroF

e W sehcaorp a l rev s dezil tu ot yrt ot dnatsre u eht

thgiew

nevig ot cisnerof ecn dive yb .sro uj ,tsriF ew deksa yltcerid how

hcum

(if ta )l a eht ecn divelacisyhp saw des uc id yruj gnirud

-biled

.snoitare ytroF tnecr p detrope yeht des uc id eht e c n d i v el a c i s y h p

a

noitr p laitn sbu e hf to .emit t n e c r pu o f - y t r i h T

gnis uc id etrope

it a etar dom ,noitr p 26% a noitr plamin fo eht ,emit

r o u j e n od a

dev ileb ti dah ton ne b des uc id

. l at

,dnoceS we sro uj deksa ,reht w fi on ecn divec snerof

ne b dah

yeht ,decu ortni dluow d e h c a re v h eht emas .tcidrev

sret auq-e rhT

said eht dluowtcidrev ne b vah eht .emas dluow ret auq-enO have

.degnahc eW tahw deriuqn eht tcidrev tner f id dluow have ne b

dna

s e n o p s e rl a y l a c i t a r p (24) detacidn taht er ht evah dluow ne b

a

egnahc morf a ytliug ot a ton ytliug .tcidrev thguo tned opser nO

ti

thgim evah n id e t l u s e r a gnuh jury, rehtona dna tah ti dluow have

detluser ni a ytliug tcidrev ot a

.egrahcres l

,drihT we deksa fi er ht saw elgnis a ec ip fo ecn div whic

s r o u je h t d e a u s r e p ni gnid f eht tnad ef d ytliug ton ro

.ytliug

thgie-ytrihT d e n o p s e rt n c e p tah er ht .saw fO

d e n o p s e ro h w e s o h t

e r ht a saw yek a ec ip fo ,ecn div 26% s i h td e v i l e b ecn div ot

eb

- w t a 0 o t t S s i~ s - t e n h e x t p o & - re m i fitse ieddur-ing-the-t-r-i a 1-.-The-nex-t-mo

detic yltneuq rf mrof fo key ecn dive saw a tcejbo elbignat

denoitnem(

yb 22% f o ,)stnednopser dewol f yb a nois fnoc ro

yb edam nois mda
 eht tnad ef d (19%) and ,yltsa emos mrof fo ecn div cisnerof deton(
yb

16% s r o u je h tf o gnid opser ot eht

.)noitseuq

yletamixorp A %26 of e r hd t v e i l b s t n e d o p s e r ot eb
smrof larev s

fo ecn div laitnes ot m e hgtn i d a u s r e p ot ekam rieht .nois ced

sro uJ

er w deksa t s i lo t op tu e rht sepyt fo ecn div taht deg uj y ht

-tirc

o lt a c i rieht .nois ced owt-y nev S tnecr p denoit m witnes,

%45
detic emos mrof fo ,ecn div elbignat %72 denoit em
ecn div c snerof

dna 16% a nois efnoc nois mda ro yb eht .tnad ef d Ther era few

morf secn r f id latnem d uf eht se nop r alugnis noted .evoba

elihW

sd en a t i w detanimo rp stnem a s gnita m rcni e sh at

- n e ut qs o rm f

ylt denoit m epyt fo ecn div ni e l b i g n a ,t s r e d u m dna forensic

-ive

er w ecn d de rage t s o m e h st a e c n d i ve s a u r e p yb more

ni sro uj

epar
.se ac

Fourth, sro uj er w deksa if er ht saw noitamr fn emos not -serp

ta detn eht lairt taht would evah depl h meht r i e h tk a m
.nois ced

tuobA half eht stned op r said taht er ht .saw fO

g n i y lf p ea rh s i h t

,"sey" 27% detic hci w ecn div eht deliaf sne d ot produce,
e.g.,

ynomitse morf se ntiw gnitarob c ro stnem a s acomplies,

fr

ecn div fo , s e c n a t m u r i cg n t a i m t a h t c a fe h tr o eht

tnad ef

deliaf ot yfitse ni n sw io h .flaheb rehtonA %35 fo eht sro uj

detic

seicn fed ni eht ;esac 'rotuces p e.g., ynam ehtl f

se ntiw

er w etauqedani dev il b dna more, ro ret b se ntiw would

evah

den htg r s eht s'rotucesorp .esac ehT tsegral single yrogetac

fo

detal r ecn div er s d ot dehsiw sro uj ;snopaew tah noituces rp

ro

esn f d d e c u o r tdnaih ,nopaew fo rp fo pihsrenwo fo mrae if

ro

detn s rp "scit l ab" rehto detal r .ecnedive rehtO juros

a deris

more dna noitag sevni del at an l arevo "ret b" prosecutin fo the

case. Some juro swished tha they could h a v e k n o w n t h e def nda t's

prio crim nal recod. Other juro s asked for "more witnes es" withou

specifying for w h i c h s i d e t h e yw r e ne d .

The impres ion fo the relative importance of forensic evidence

which em rges from thes four questions si tha forensic evidence re-

ceiv s serious consideration from juro s but si not us al y the key

evid nc . fI( ti si the key evid nce, this is most like y to oc ur ni a

rape ).esac Its pres nce in a case us al y acts to as i t in ensuring a

convict on. Nonethel s , for ap roximately 25% of crim nal case ,

forensic evidence si perc ived to eb cru ial to convict on.

Witnes es and Their Persuasiven s

Our survey fo the nation's crime laboratories include questions

about the fraction of case for which forensic evidence si examined

ni

which scientif c person el testify in court. Results ind cated tha , on

average examiners testify in %8 fo drug case and 10% fo crim nalistics

case for which evidencehad be n examin d. Thus, the ap ear nce of the

forensic examiner in court si a relatively ra e oc ur enc . As noted

ni

the prec ding chapter, an ap ear nce si most likely to eb as ociated

with a jury trial.

A crime lab examiner testif ed in 6 of the 1 murde trials, 2

fo

the 7 at empted murde s, 2 fo the 3 rapes, no e of the armed rob eries,

al fo the control ed substance and arson case , tub not in the

burgla y.

In case wher they di tes ify, the crime laboratory examiner and

the cor ne /pathol gist wer most persuasive of al witnes es evalu t d.

 Both types of forensic expert witnes es were ranked "highly persuasive"

yb about 60% of the respondents. Victims of crimes were considered to

eb the next most persuasive, ranked highly persuasive by 40% of jurors,

fol owed by ey witnes es )%63( police of icers )%03( and, lastly, de-

fendants, who were thought to be highly persuasive by only %8 of the

responding juro s. The def ndant's testimony was ranked "not at al

persu asive" by one-third of the juro s. Fewer than %1 of the re-

spondents evaluated crime lab examiners' testimony as "not at al

persua ive".

Multivariate Analysi of Selected Dep ndent Variables

We were interested to determine fi forensic evid nce- ither the

presence or absence of a particular type of scientific evidence, the

ap earance and persuasiven s of an expert witnes , or its understanding

by juro s- influenced theoutcomes of jury trials and the ease or dif-

ficulty with which jurors reached their verdicts. In ad ition to these

forensicvariables we also control ed for the persuasivenes of other

witnes es, of ense type, if single or multiple charges had be n filed,

and the age and gender of the respondent. We employed stepwise logistic

regres ion analysiswhich iswel -suited to a multivariate an lysi with

a binary dep ndent variable such as wehave her: conviction (yes, no)

and nature of the trial verdict decision (easy, difcult). The reader

is refer ed to Chapters VI and IX for a more detailed discus ion of

the logistic regres ion an lysi procedure.

Tab-IT774 p r e s n t 3 - t h e resultsofthe~lyses. Only two factors

emerge as signif cant predictors of trial verdict: persuasivenes of

 elbaT
7.4
lairT :emoctuO tcidreV dna ~ase/~if iculty
of
nois ceD
cits goL
nois erg R

) s d og o l (

tned peD
selbair V

tned pednI tcidreV

ytlucif D/esaE
selbair V )ytliugton/ytliug( fo
tcidreV

s en visau reP
fo
eciloP
recif O

s en visau reP
fo
emirC baL
renimaxE

s en visau reP
fo

tnad ef D

gnid atsrednU
fo
lacisyhP
ecn divE

egA fo
ro uJ

redn G fo
ro uJ

seit l ba orP detciderP

ihC ledoM
erauqS

* tnacif ngiS ta .05; :w tnacif ngiS ta 1O.

d n a y n o m i t s e ' s r e c i f oe c i l p eht g n i d a t s r e d n 'u s r o u j fo eht
lacisyhp

ecn div detn serp ta .lairt e s gh nt i y o l p m E owt selbair v selbane

eno

ot yltcer o tciderp eht stcidrev fo 72% fo eht .stned opser The

esa

ro ytlucif d hci w htiw dehca r s oruj rieht

d e c n su al wf n is o i c e d

yb y l e t ap m o c tesn ref id fo .selbair v sA eht s en vi ausrep

fo

eht crime bal , d e s a r c ne i m a x e sro uj rieht dnuof snoi ced ot

eb

.reisae sa ,rev woH eht

,evisau r pe om e ac b ynomitse s'tnad ef

sro uj dah ytlucif d reta g ni gnihcaer a .tcidrev nI

,noit d a

younger, sro uj elam f de n t ot have ytlucif derom ni gnikam

-iced

snoi naht ,redlo

.selam

hguo tlA eht hci w snoi ulcno yam eb nward

detimslhtmorf

elpmas of yruj e r as l i r t emos ,yranim le p gnitser tni seiro ht may

eb

.desop r htiw ,tsriF tceps r ot lairt ,tcidrev ti raep dluow

tah

ro uj gnid atsre nu e h ft o cisnerof ecn div is etiuq .tna ropmi tI

si

yhtrowe n taht ti si siht c i s n e r ao lf u c i t r a p elbair v whic

segr m

dna. not seno gnis erd a s en visau rep ht fo trepx eht nor
witnes,

esoht ecn dive gnis erd a type (e. g., sniatsdo lb ro .)smraerif
-nI

and srotucesorphtiw s eivr t syevru fo crime

osla srenimax yrota b l

thguorb tuo siht .tniop sA deton ,reil a srotucesorp kniht sro uj

era

capble fo gnid atsrednu ecn div cif tne s tub taht a heavy
nedrub

sedi r with rotucesorp eht ni gni alpxe such .ecn dive In eht
-ni

noitcud r ot siht retpahc detrop w taht

srotce id yrota b l emirc

ev il b ylra ucitrap on sro uj capble fo gnid atsrednu

-neics xelpmoc

cif t
.ynomitset

htiW tceps r e h ot esa or ytlucif d fo eht 'sro uj decison,

ti

i s-t-he-p r e se-nevisaus s-ofthec r-ime-1-ab-oIat ro y e max i ne r whiFh i ~ -1 y

elbair v tnacif g s gnoma eht ynam laitne op srotcaf isnerof whic

 sretn otni eht .noitauqe ehT tcaf tah eht more evisau r p eht
,trepx
\

eht reisa eht decison, sekam evit u n .esnes tI also st eg u

tah

while nois eh rpmoc fo eht ecn dive e c n y ua lm f i eht etami lu

lairt

decison (as ,it )!dluohs eht ytilauq fo s en vi ausrep si

yradnoces

rotcaf whic ylno secn ulfni eht ease whic t sro uj rieht caer

etami lu
.nois ced

yram uS

se ntiW l a( )sepyt devorp ot m r o fe v i s a u r t p o m e h t b

fo

ecn div detic yb gnikam ni sro uj rieht .snoi ced Tangible

-neicsno (

)cif t evidnc ds ea kw n r tsomtxen frequntly snoi ef c dna

dna

ecn div c snerof .dewol f sro uJ draeh o w rape

cisnerof deknar s c

dna ecn div elbignat more n aehvti s a u r e p juros ohw tas tnemgduj ni
fo

d e g r a h cs t n d e f with rehto .semirc Crime bal srenimax and

sa deknar w st igol h ap eht tsom se ntiw l a fo evisau r p who

eht ;deif ts tsael er w se ntiw evisau r p eht

stnad ef

.sevl smeht

er w sro uJ o dt e s p x e yar ediw a fo lacisyhp ecn div sepyt

ni

eht ,slairt tsom gnit c netfo eht noita es rp fo

smrae if ,shpargot

lacigo b dna ec div etal r .slairetam evidnc Ths s a ow l

i
1
noitr p laitn sbu a des uc i fo en mi t e h jury
.snoitarebil d

tuobA driht-eno fo eht juros dias yeht do tsre nu eht lacisyhp

ecn dive

d e t n s r p e c n d i v f o s m r f e h t o n a hrte b at eht .lairt A

ret auq

fo the dias ro uj tah had siht lacisyhp ecn div not

detn s rp e b

yeht would degnahc v rieht guilty stcidrev to ton guilty

.stcidrev
 The multivar e anlyse of lairt verdict and the eas ro
-fid

f i c u wl t y h i c j u r o s reachd rieht decison shed aditonl light

on the i m p o r t afn c e forensic vd and witnes w hm oa y have

tesifd during the .lairt The betr juos nd the fornsic

evid nc , the great tendcy they had ot findthe def n a t guilty.

This dec ion was made easir by the a p e r no cf na exprt witnes ho

was hig ly persuaiv.

 RETPAHC
I V

;NOITC VNOC
EHT ECN ULFNI OF CISNEROF
,ECN DIV
S E P Y TR E H T O FO ECN DIVE AND

LAGEL-ARTXE
SROTCAF

~ntroduct

noi

nI siht retpahc ew enimaxe t c e f . e ht fo

e l b i g n a td c i s n e r o f

ecn dive e h tn o p u do hilek f o gnil ortn c elihw noitc vnoc rof a

egnar

fo rehto yraitnediv l a g e l - a r t x ed n a .selbairav ruO at d se ab era

eht

esac selif fo laudiv dni. stnad ef d ni ,ogacihC dnalk O ,IAC(

sa n K

City, airoeP (IL) dna nevaH weN (CT) rof redn lac eht raey .1891 nI
eht

se ylan ot ew ,wol f ezil tu d n ea t i r a v i b h t o b

- s i t a es i r a v t l u m

s e u q i n h c le at i ot ebircsed eht
.selbair v gnoma spih noitaler

ruO sucof si nopu .noitc vnoc saW eht tnad ef d detcivno fo some

emirc ro ?ton eW od s e v l s r u o n r e c ot n ni siht retpahc htiw

aelp

egrahc ,gni agr b ,snoitcuder so dna htrof e s( gniwol f .)retpahc

fI

eht tnad ef d d e t c i v n o cs a w no yna ,egrahc it si a .noitc vnoc fI

eht

tnad ef d l ad h fo reh/sih des im d segrahc or saw det iuqca fo la

segrahc ta a ,lairt s it not a 1 . n o i t c i v n o c Thus, eht elbair v yek fo

noit e a si a ymot hcid elpmis -- ton/detcivnoc .detcivnoc sihT

noitcn sid si tsom eht eno lacit rc rof ,stnad ef d fo ,esruoc since

ylno eb nac detcivnoc yl autc stnad ef d esoht yl amrof

2.dehsinup

noitc vnoC si eht "lamron" emoctu ni tsom lanim rc ,struoc

-se

y n o l e fy a i c e p .struoc ruO era seti no .noitpecxe In la ,selaco

ta

tsael sdriht-owt f o stnad ef d delpmas eht er w .detcivnoc

serugif hT
------

a hcaorp 90% etar noitc vnoc ni dnalk O (88%) dna nevaH weN (86%)
dna

a etar noitc vnoc shtruof-e rht ni ogacihC (74%) dna Peoria .)%37(
ylnO

167
 in Kansa City )%76( and Litchfield )%6 ( si the rate of conviction
sa

"low sa two-hirds.

The conviction rates vary acros our sites both because fo dif er-

ing court structures and varying philos phies about early case scre ni g

(se Chapter .)1 In Oakland, for example, many def ndants charged

with les r felonies (e.g., property crimes) are adjudicated -- and

fairly often dismis ed -- ni the lower (munic pal) courts, ther by

res rving SuperiorCourt for the most serious case and def ndants.

This si not the practice in Chicago ro Peoria, since Il inois has a

unif ed trial court struc re. Thus, sta em nts can ot be made about

the overal conviction-prone s fo our sites, because our samples

fo

def ndants refl ct those varying court structures and philos phies
fo

case scre ni g.

What we can, and wil , do in this chapter si examine the contrib-

ution fo physical evidence (both forensic and tangible), and a range of

other evidentiary and extra-lega factors toward convict on. Does

forensic evidence -- evidence scientif cal y examined by a crime labo-

ratory -- make a discernible dif er nce in the conviction rate? What

dif er nce does tangible vidence (such a proce ds fo the crime

ro

physical evidence not scientif cal y examined) make? Although the clear

emphasi ni this chapter wil be on forensic evidence, we are also

inter sted in seing: )1 the contribution of forensic evidence vis-a

vis other kinds fo evidence in their influence on case outcome and 2) f i

the contribution fo forensic evidence hinges upon the pres nce or ab-

sence fo other forms fo evidence -- witnes es, confes ions - .or extra-

lega factors -- age, race, ro genderOftf~3~antYTiftsffEtp

on the convict/no convict decis on.

 Our multivariate analyses address the relative contribution of each

of these variables toward conviction, identifying which are the most

important in attaining a conviction. In all analyses, our interest is

the identification of patterns of associations between independent

variables and likelihood of conviction across most or all of our sites.

In essence, this striving for generality is the purpose behind a broad-

based, multi-site research study.

We have excluded the Litchfield, Connecticut site from the mul-

tivariate analysis discussion. Only 17% (40) of the 234 cases we

reviewed in Litchfield in 1981 possessed laboratory reports. Of these

40 reports only 3 (8%) resulted in an association between offender and

crime. As a result, forensic evidence registered no statistical impact

in our various analyses.

Forensic Evidence and Conviction

The availability of forensic evidence depends upon its collection --'* =,*"

by crime scene technicians and analysis by a crime laboratory. As

Chapter IV indicated, only one-quarter to one-third of cases actually

have forensic evidence which is scientifically analyzed. For this group

I
of cases -- i.e., ones having a laboratory report -- the conviction rate

I is typically not significantly higher or different than cases without

i
forensic evidence. Only in Peoria do cases having a laboratory report

result in more convictions (78% versus 71%, pe.04).

Nonetheless, forensic evidence has the potential to contribute

I s ign i f i cant 1y towacddeesStablishing-t-he+gwi-1-t-o rimuc-en-c-eeb=XiKdua 1

1 defendants through the specific results of crime laboratory analyses.

 tA sti ,tsegnor ecn dive cisnerof nac etaicos a ylevisulcno
a

ah t i w t n a d e f emirc en cs ro/dna .mitciv sihT si eht ,esac

rof

htiw ,ecnats i tnirp egnif r o . s e y l a ns c i t s i l a b ynaM smrof fo

-nerof

cis yam ecn dive ylno etaicos a ylevita net a tnad ef d htiw a emirc --
er hw sa eht do lb e h ft o tnad ef d si dnuof ot eb tne si noc" "htiw
a

niatsdo lb dnuof ta eht en cs fo a .emirc

osla nac e n dive cisneroF

yield snoitac fitnedi -- hcus sa fo ,sgurd semn, ro elita ov sdiuqil --

eta il caf esiwrehto a noitcur snocer of eht emirc ro emirc
.en cs

such Finaly, e t a r n o x e y l a n o i s a c ol i w e c n d i v e ro tbuod tsac no

eht

tliug fo a nehw ,tnad ef yrota b l stluser era ,evisulcno i liaf

ot

etaicos etaicos id ylbis op r eht htiw tnad ef d .emirceht

-civnoC

noit setar rof hcae fo es ht e rht sepyt fo stlu er dna

se ac rof

tuoh iw ecn div denimaxe yl acif tneics era detn serp ni elbaT
3.1.8

er hT si a :nret ap ni tsom site, eht sdnet ar noitc vnoc ot

eb

cisnerof hw rehgi ecn dive has "detaicos a" eht htiw tnad ef d
eht

.esnef o n e h w t a,hsTi sknil ecn dive cisnerof eht tnad ef d -- -ulcno

ylevis. ro yl acits ba orp -- with eht ,emirc eht do hilek fo -civnoc

tion is .tsehgi airoeP si a epyto rp fo .noitpircsed siht

noitc v C
i
setar od 6on vary gnoma yltnacif ngis eht rehto ,seirog tac t nu ib
eht

"noita cos a" ,yrogetac noitc vnoc si net yl uf egatnecr p stniop

ro

more .rehgih es hT secn ref id ni era airoeP

tnacif ngis yl acits ats

(pz.02). Chicago sro im airoeP tpecx ,yltcaxetsomla ehtaht

-ref id

secn ni ogacihC era ton ,tnacif g s yl acits esuaceb er ht era so

few snoita cos a cisnerof (29 ni ,ogacihC htiw derapmoc 98 n i

Peoria).

dnalk O dna New nevaH osla folw eht nret ap fo eht

-cids ruj sion l I
-
-
-
tions, tub eht snoitc vnoc ni se a rcni ni eht
yrogetac "noita cos a"

( 3 4 % ) arenot egral hguone ot eb yl acits .tnacif ngis InKansa

 Table 8 . 1

Forensic Evidence and Conviction

-
Results of
Laboratory
Testing Chicago Oakland Kansas City Peoria New Haven

Association 83%" 93% 72% 86% 89%

Identification/
Reconstruction 74% 89% 72% 75% 86%

No Evidence
Examined 77% 89% 67% 71% 85%

Failure to
Associate 75 % 87% 46%"'" 73% 75%

--

* Only 29 cases

** Only' 26 cases
 City, howev r, a dif er nt pat ern em rg s. The "failure to as ociate"

category has many few r convictions )%64( than any fo the other

categories, indicating tha in Kansa City -- though not els wher --

def ndants are sometimes the b nefic aries fo laboratory tes tha -
fail

to link them with the crime. Dif er nces betwe n no forensic evid nce

and posit ve result (including as ociat ons) in Kans City, howev r,

are min al, albeit in the xpected irections (67% versu .)%27 The

to ality of thes dif er nces acros categories in Kansa City ap-

proaches sta istical signif cance

.)60.=p(

In sum, this lo k ta the dat ind cates a smal as ociation betwe n

forensic evidence and the likeliho d fo convict on. In particular,

conviction ap ears more l i k e l yw h e n f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e a s o c i a t e s a

def nda t with a crime scen or vict m. The dif er nces, howev r, are

,
' ra ely large and sometimes fail to reach sta istical sign fican e.

T a n g i b l eE v i d e n c e and Conviction

Tangible evidence, to , has the poten ial to establish a

def nda t's guilt or in oce . Various forms of such evidence --

proce ds fo the crime, articles fo clothing, weapons ro other belongi s

-- can link a def ndant with a crime scen and/or victm. Inde , other

r e s a r ch a s found some forms of this evidence to lead to conviction

(se Forst, 1977). Conviction rates for case with no tangible evi-

denc , evidence tha "ten atively" as ociates def nda t and crime

scen /victim, and evidence tha "con lusively" as ociates def nda t and

crime scen lvictim are pres nted in Table

8.2.
 Table
2.8

Tangible Evidence and Conviction

Tangible

Evidence Chicago Oakland Kansa City Peoria New Haven"

Conclusive

As ociation 83% 92% 7% 89% --

Tenta ive

As ociation 78% 9 1 % 64% 90%

No ~ssociation/

No Evidence 73% 8% 57%

* Dat unav ilable in New Haven.

 ehT sgnid f era .suo gibmanu dna gnik rts l a nI tub eno
etis

,)dnalkao( er ht is a dna elba zis yl acits

tnacif ngis

pihsnoitaler ni eht .noitcerid detc pxe se aC e l b i g hn ta w

ecn dive

tnad ef d gnik l dna era emirc hcum erom yleki ot tluser ni

-civnoc

.noit ehT pihsno taler si yltcefr p raenil ni ogacihC )60 .=p(

dna

sa n K ytiC (p=.001): evisulcno era snoita c s

e v i t a n e t ar he t b

snoita cos a ,hci w ni ,nrut are ret b naht no hcus .ecn dive nI
owt

seti -- Peoria )10 .=p( dna ytiC sa n K )10 .=p( -- eht ecn r f id is

20 egatnecr p stniop s orca ;seirog tac ni Chicago, 10 .stniop

,niagA

,hguo t ni dnalk O er ht is elt i ecn r f id esuaceb yl autriv

la

delpmas stnad ef d era

4.detcivnoc

,ecn divE rehtO srotcaF l ge artxE and

noitc v C

yaM ew now yas tah ew dnatsre u eht pihsno taler ne wt b

cisnerof

dna ecn dive elbignat dna ?noitc vnoc toN ta al,

des corp se ac rof

hguor t eht s e op struoclanim rc a yteirav fo

yraitnediv rehto

yam hci w scit retcar hc osla pleh hsilbat e eht tliug ro ecn o ni
fo

a .tnad ef d dluow es hT edulcni stnem a ,se ntiw yb

tnad ef eht

gnidrage eht ,emirc ecn serp eht fo a roi p pihsno taler ne wt b

eht

dna tnad ef d ,mitc v eht secnatsmucri gnid uor s

s'tnad ef d eht

dna ,nois eh rp a os .htrof In noit d a ot

,snoitared snoc yraitned v

lagel-artxe srotcaf have osla ne b dnuof ot ecn ulf i eht

noitac duj

fo se ac lanim rc rof( an ylrae se reviw, ,nag H 1974). hguo T

-nu

detal r ot eht fo stcaf eht esac dna netfo ylrae c repo mi ot

,redisnoc

bmun-a e-r--f--uck-v aria-bl-e-s-h-aved-ound=Iatedeithe r t o s n e t n e c

e
,ytirev s fo do hilek ,noitc v ro .htob es hT edulcni epyt
fo
 esn fed ,yenrot a roirp lanim rc
scit retcar hc tnad ef d na ,droce

hcus sa ,ega ,ecar dna

.redn g

sebircsed noitces ihT hcae fo es ht ylfeirb srotcaf e h td n a

ren am

ni hci w noitamrofni dena lg morf eht esac saw selif de oc rof

-esbu

.si ylan tneuq ehT reda hsiw yam ot tlusnoc eht yevrus
tnemurtsni

desu ot edoc h c i w n o i t a m r o f n ie l f e s a c si de u-lcni ni ~p endix

2.I X

ot . t r o p e rs i h t ralim s ,o lA ot eht s n o i t a l u b ts o r c fo cisnerof

dna

elbignat ecn dive dna noitc v detn serp ehtni gnidec rp section,

ycneg itnoc er w selbat detcur snoc rof es ht selbair v rehto as

.l ew

selbair v es hT des uc i era ni liated and eht fo stlu er

s orc ieht

noitalub t htiw esac emoctu deniat oc era ni xidnep A

.I IV

A rebmun fo es ht selbair v devorp ot eb srotcaf tnacif ngis ni dna

fo sevl smeht dna ni noita bm c htiw eht cisnerof nehw ecn div we

detcudnoc ruo s e y l a ne t i r a v t l u m fo .noitcivnoc esohT

selbair v

hcihw degr me
:era

o s en uoireS fo eht tnedicnI - d e t a r o p c ne il b a r v s i h T

srotcaf hcus sa esn f o eht epyt lanosrep( ro , ) y t r e p o r p
eht

tnetxe fo yrujni ot eht dna ,mitc v eht esu/ cnes rp fo a

.nopaew

tnad ef D o stnem ta S - ynaM stnad ef d ekam stnem ta s ot

eht ecilop ro gni ar ,rotuces p morf sib la ro

yrotaplucxe

skrame ot stnem ta s gnita mircn ro thgirtuo

.snois efnoc

o se ntiW - tnes rpe s ntiW a mrof fo ecn div demus rp

ot eb evisau r p ot lage nois ced .srekam riehT ytil ba

ot
I
 tnuocer eht dna emirc deg l a ot yfitnedi eht tnad ef d
era

demus rp
4.laicurc

The tser A - sihT stne rpe lbair v if eht tnadnef d saw

ta de n herp a ro raen eht emirc .en cs We dluow

tcepxe

taht stnad ef dnehw era dets r a esolc ot eht en cs fo

eht

emirc do hilek ht fo dluow noitc vnoc eb

.retaerg

roi P ne wt B pihsnoitaleR mitciV dna tnad ef D - suoiverP

hcraes sah nwohs r e wtoalh t setar noitc vnoc era eht
mron

ni se ac er hw eht tnad ef d dna mitc v knew

rehtona eno

roirp ot eht
.emirc

Prio droceR - stnad ef D htiw gnol sdroce fo dna tser a

noitc vnoc are ton dew iv yl aus sa "yhtrow" fo yna

,skaerb

hcus sa a las im d fo charges, nev in ecaf eht fo

kaew

.ecnedive hguo T netfo semit roirp eht droce fo a

-dnef d

tna l iw ton , l a i rt e g r m e it si yleki a lartnec

eus i

aelp gnirud
5.snoitaitogen

cihpargomeD scit retcar hC e h ft o tnad ef D - ehT age, xes

dna ecar fo osla e r w s t n a d e f d e h t

.del ortnoc

etair v luM si ylanA fo

noitc v C

- ---- T-o--onde~stand--b-etTe-r-threlations5ips,dna srotcaf es htgnoma

,erof eht ot l a u d i v n i e h st a tcapmi fo cisnerof

dna ecn dive
 rehto ,noitc vnoc pu selbair v ew ko trednu a si ylan etair v tlum
fo

eht esac . n o i t c i d s i r u j h c a e r oa ft d e l i f hguor T siht mrof

fo

,si ylan eht ecn ulfni fo rotcaf hcae nopu nac oitc vnoc eb
des a

. s e l b a i r a v t n e d n e p d rn ei h t o r f g n i l o r t n c ,ralucitrap nI ew
nac

reht w enimaxe spih no taler yna ecn dive cisnerofne wt b dna

-civnoc

e l b a nT o( i t 8.1) slortn c dnatsh iw .selbairav rehtor f roi P ot

eht

se ylan etair v tlum we detset ytiraenil ocitum rof gnoma la

-dnep dni

tne selbair v dna( rieht 6.)snoitcaretni m r osfi h T fo si ylan

osla

selbane su to enimr t d f i stca ecn dive cisnerof in

htiw noitan bmoc

rehto yraitned v ro lagel-artxe srotcaf ni gnitcef a esac .emoctuo

nI

redro ot tset rof snoitcaretnihcus we evah ynam de oc r fo

eht

selbair v tned pedni eb rcsed ylsuoiverp otni seimot hcid

ot

eta il caf
.si ylan eht

eW have nesohc ot ezil tu esiwp t nois erg cits gol ,si ylan a

lacits detius-l ew euqinhcet ot s erd a eht desop snoitseuq

7.evoba

euqinhc t sihT stimrep a etami se ic rp ylevitaler fo tcef eht

fo

e l b a i r v t n e d p e d n hi c a e nopu a tned ped suom t hcid elbair v

-civnoc(

tion), gnil ortn c rof la rehto derusa m tnednep dni .selbair v nI

eht

se ylan ot ,wol f we tnes rp ton at d ylno rof eht lato elpmas

fo

se ac h c a e niht w etis tub osla rof cif eps s e p y te s n e f o

detag r a

s orca la
.snoitc dsiruj

lA
se aC

elbaT 8.3 s t l u e r h ts n e r p fo esiwp t

nois erg cits gol
--
si ylan e h tr o f lato elpmas of se ac niht w hcae
- -selbairaV-bis
-
- --
-- -

deifs ta hc w the p< .05 t s e t fo ecna if g s are de ulcni eht ni

71
 elbaT
8.3

:noitcivnoC esiwpetS citsigoL y b nois erg R

etiS
(~og
)sd O

lA
se aC

o g a c i h C d n a l k ytiCO s a n K airoeP New

nevaH

noitc vnoC etaR 79% 91% 69% 77% 87%

s'tnad ef D egA -.02" - 039: -- - 02"" --

elbignaT ecn divE .36"" -- 47"" 81"" --
(TEV I) )IVET( VET( 1)

ecn divE cisneroF -- -- .22" .33'k) a ( .02*

IVEF( )IVEI .5 )b( (FEV 1 SER~)

roi P
pihsnoitaleR -- -- - 73"" - "93 --
dets r A ~t/Near
emirC en cS

s ensuoireS

droceR roi P

se ntiweyE

detciderP

seit l ba orP

ledoM
ihC
erauqS

** tnacifngiS ta 1O. )a( lVEF

* tnacif ngiS ta .05 )b( 2VEF

871
 .ledom eW eso hc ot tnes rp la hcus selbair v tnacif ngis susrev(
a

etom suoin m srap )ledom ecnis eht esopru fo ruo yduts si ot

etamitse

stcef evitaler ht f o
detal r ehto dna cisnerof

lage rtxe/yraitnediv srotcaf no esac gnis ecorp

.snois ced

The stneic f eoc ni eht elbat are fo mhtiragol eht

ten eht

esa rced/ saercni ni sd o fo noitc v detubirtnoc yb

ralucitrap

.selbair v The selbair v ew denimaxev h era ton

-s ec us ylra ucitrap

luf n i d e t a c i d sn a , e m o c t u e s a c g n i a l p x e yb eht e g a t n e c r t sp e d o m
fo

hci w semoctu era yltcer oc 8.detciderp ehT selbair v de ulcni ni

eht

ytiC sa n K dna mrof ep sledom airoeP ,tseb gnitc derp yltcer oc %86
dna

69% fo eht semoctu 9.ylevitceps r eht ,gnikaeps yl aren G

erom

hci w selbair v retne eht ,noitauqe ht ret b evitc derp eht rewop
fo

nevigeht
.ledom

era er hT e rht selbair v dnats hci w tuo gnoma orf eht

ynam

,denimaxe tahtni they evorp ot eb srotciderp tnacif ngis fo

noitc vnoc

ni e rht ro erom .snoitacol owT fo es ht selbair v ebircs d

yraitnediv

scit retcar hc fo a case, elihw eht driht is

tnad ef a

.cits retcar hc

egA fo eht tnad ef D - egA si eht cits retcar hc i pargomed ylno

hci w sevorp ot eb a tnacif g s yl acits rotciderp fo

- t u o esac

.emoc nI ,tcaf eht ega fo eht tnad ef d saw fo ecnatropmi ni

e rht

etar p s :setis ,ogacihC dnalk O .airoeP dna In la of es ht

,seti

era stnad ef dregnuoy more ylekil ot eb detcivno detacidn ( yb a

sunim

ngis ni tnorf e h ft o
.)stneicif eoc

n I c r i m i na t i gn S t a t m e n e m&-1 e-t p-r uo~st

i-na-r y-Chi v a i'at-1-wiiniZT

fo tnad ef d eht stnem a elbair v dna noitc vnoc dela v r etar

rieht

971
 relationship to eb no linear e s( ~ppendix VIII). That is, rates of

convict on do not uniformly rise among the various jurisd ctions as

def nda t sta em nts becom more incr m ating. sA a result, and to

ac om date sub equ nt tes for interactions, the orig nal four-lev

variable was recod into thre d i c h o t m i e s , contras i g:

oC a s e w h e r the d fenda t made a d maging sta em nt ro an

outright confes ion with those case wher the def nda t

eith r made no sta em nt or of er d an alib

(IEV1);

o Case wher the d fenda t of er d an alib with those wher

the def n a t made no sta em nt ta al (dam gin sta em nts

and confes ion wer code as mi ng) (1~~2)

; and

oC a s e wher the d fenda t actu l y confes d to the crime

with those wher he/s made only a d m a g i n g sta em nt

(IEV~); her , case wher the def nda t made no sta em nts

or of er d an alib wer code as mis ng.

This recoding enabled su t o c ntras what we thoug t wer the most

inter sting situations invol ing def nda t sta em nts and made the task

of build ng interaction terms into ur overal equation much more

man geabl .

We found tha for the cit es of Oakl nd, Peoria and New Haven,
lVEI
proved o et b sign ficant ta the 1O. .lev That ,si case wher the

def nda t t u tr e edst a~LemerrtS~~-madean-ou~-i-ght~~o~f-e~i~n-were~~gn-i~--

i c a n t ml oy r e like y to result in a conviction than case wher the

def nda t made no sta em nt ro of er d an alib.

Q81
 IEV3 osla devorp ot eb a tnacif ngis rotciderp ni e rht

snoitc dsiruj sa naK ,ogacihC( ytiC dna )airoeP gnitacidni taht

se ac

gnivlo ni an thgirtuo nois efnoc era yltnacif ngis erom yleki ot

tluser

ni a noitc vnoc se ac naht er hw ylno a tnem ta s gni am d si

.der f o

IEV2, sib la seh iugn tsid hc w morf er hw snoitau is eht

tnad ef d

sekam no tnem ta s is tnacif ngis n yi l n o sa n K .ytiC er hw se aC

eht

detaicos a era ib la na sref o tnad ef d htiw rewol setar fo

noitc vnoc

s e a ch t i w d e r a p m o c er hw eht tnad ef d sekam no tnem ta s ta

.l a

ecn divE elbignaT - sihT ,elbair v ,osla devorp ot n a ev h

raenil pihsnoitaler htiw eht noitc vnoc etar s orca la ruo

detc l s

snoitc dsiruj hguohtla( it di ni ogacihC dna sa n K City).

-noC

,yltneuq s ot hcus etadom c a raenil o spih noitaler dna ot

eta il caf

ruo hcraes rof snoitcaretni lb s op ne wteb cisnerof dna

elbignat

,ecn dive we dezimot hcid eht elbair v owt ni tner f id

,syaw

:gnitsartnoc

o er hw se aC elbignat ylevita net r htie cnediv ro

-ulcno

detaicos ylevis eht

e s o h t i w e m i r c e h td n a t n a d e f d

er hw no ecn dive lbignat ta la saw der vocer (TEv~);

dna

o er hw se aC eht ecn dive elbignat

detaicos ylevisu cno

eht tnad ef d dna htiw emirc eht esoht er hw it

ylno

ylevita net detaicos eht htiw tnad ef d eht emirc

(TEVZ).

tuoh iw se aC ecn dive lbignat er w deif s alc sa

.gnis im

--
--
gnaT- i b ive-e& cned e -p r o v e - d - t i r b m i m l f i c%5tVd i c t nr io e rht

snoitc dsiruj ,ogacihC( sa naK ytiC dna Peoria). elbignat iv H

-ive

181
 ecn d y l e v i t a n eh tc i w r o setaicos a ylevisulcno the tnad ef d with

emircht (TEV1) is yltnacif ngis erom tna ropmi ni

e s ag cn i t d e r p

emoctu naht se ac er hw eno ta la si tnes rp ni e rht snoitacol -

,ogacihC ytiC sa n K dna
.airoeP

The ylevisulcno dna ylevita net wteb noitcn sid

gnita cos

ecn dive lbignat (TEVZ) ton d e v o r p ebot .tnacif ngis

e rhT rehto selbair v -- r o i r p tcepsu ne wt b pihsnoitaler dna

victm, gnieb ta dets r a ro e n c s e m i r c e h tr a n dna

s en uoir s emirc

-- ni egr me seit c owt n id a detc pxe ht .noitcerid noitc v C setar

era rewol ni se n f o er hw eht tnad ef d mitc v dna have a roi p

-aler

elihw ,pihsno t gnieb dets r a ta ro raen eht se a rcni e s

eht

do hilek fo .noitc vnoc nI erom ,airoeP suoires se n f o tluser

ni

setar ewol fo noitc vnoc ni a noihsaf raenil .)~REs( In

se ac ,ogacihC

ta htob sdne e hfto s en uoir s mu nit oc eht( tsom dna tsael

suoire

t l u s )e r s a c ni rewol setar fo noitc v (sERZ). e S(

tneuq sbu eht

noitces cisneroF" no retal "snoitcaretnI in eht retpahc rof a

erom

et lpmoc nois uc id f o snoitamrofsnart suoirav ruo fo the

s en uoir s

).elbairav r e h to N ,yraitnediv lagel-artxe ro cihpargomed

selbair v

egr m sa srotciderp tnacif ngis ni more naht a ,noitc ds ruj elgnis and

erof eht kcal

.ytil bazil ren g

ecn divE cisneroF

eW dnuof taht eht ecn dive cisnerof degr m elbair v yb flesti sa a

rotciderp tnacif ngis in ylno eno noitc ds ruj - .airoeP Howevr, eht
- -
--- - -
- forensicva+bl tcaretni-did selbair v htiw ni owt seitrch o ot

evah na tcef on . e m o c t u e s a cr d o n I ot s ucsid ecn ulf i ht

fo

281
 cisnerof ecn dive dna sti htiw noitcaretni rehto
otde n w selbair v

tnes rp a nois uc id trohs fo how eht lev -ruof lanig ro

cisnerof

elbair v saw
.de oc r

The reda r l iw l acer taht ruo lait ni si ylanet irav b

fo

ecn dive cisnerof dna denimret d emoctu esac taht eht

pihsno taler

ne wteb o w te h t tonsaw .raenil gnikcaL a hcus raenil ,pihsno taler

ew

e r hv te i l e b ot eb owt cisab rehto eht uoba snoitseuq

pihsno taler

ne wteb ecn dive cisnerof dna hci w emoctu esac era yhtrow fo
-xe

:gnirolp eht tsrif is tcef e ht no gnivah % dnik fo cisnerof -obal

trope yrota in esac gnivahsu rev eno ta ;l a dnoces ht si

eht

tcef e fo gnivah cisnerof

htiw tnad ef d ehts aicos ahci w ecn dive

eht su rev emirc er hw se ac ecn dive si dezylan tub sdleiy no

hcus

.noisulcnoc nI ret aleht lairetam noitau is yam be deif tn

ro

deif s alc ni emos ,noihsaf tub seod ton ot dael

gni rec o noisulc a

a ne wt b egaknil eht e h td n a t n a d e f d .emirc The rem of

ymot hcid

bal( troper .sv on )troperbal saw del bal lVEF dna eht ret al
(as-

noita c s .sv on )noitaicos a saw del ebal FEV2. st eT dewohs es ht

owt

selbair v suom t hcid ton e bo t raenil oc eno htiw rehtona ro

htiw

cisnerof noitcaretni smret debircsed ni eht txen

.noitces

The reda r l a c e rl i w taht de n t er ht guohtla ot eb

laren g a

nret ap rof setar noitc vnoc to eb rehgi when eht cisnerof

ecn dive

htiw nadnef d ehtsknil eht eht ,emirc ylno ytic er hw siht

etair v b

pihsnoitaler saw tnacif ngis (at eht .05 )level saw ni airoeP
sa naK(

saw ytiC yrev esolc ta .06). ,yltneuq s oC it si ton gnis rp u ot

dnif

taht airoeP e h ts i ecn dive cisnerof hw ytic ylno sdnat h iw

eht
- --
slortn c l a rof rehto nI>selbairav _fact,-both-~-e~at-ionships -'-- FEVl
- -
- --

dna 2VEF -- devorp ot eb gnil ort c elihw tnacif g s rof rehto

.srotcaf

183

snoitcaretnIcisneroF

e h rt o F se oprup fo siht yduts hsiw osla ew ot se if rehtie fo

eht

selbair v cisnerof de oc r 1VEF( dna )2VEF stcaretni

rehto iw

selbair v ni rieht tcef e no noitc vnoc .setar hguo tlA it si

etiuq

elbis op e ht a h t selbair v tned pednig niamer

e n oh t i w c a r e t n i

nr ie h t o n a rieht nopu stcef eht tcivnoc n/tcivnoc ,nois ced

e s o h ec w

ton t o s e i t l b i s o p h c u se l i f o r p ni siht n e v i g y d u rt as l c i t r a p
sti

evitc jbo yrami p fo gnil ated eht ecn ulfni fo

no ecn dive cif tneics

case
.emoctuo

eW detc l s eht e rht key selbair v ecn divec snerofn

tnadnef d(

,stnem a s elbignat ,ecn div dna ytil ba v fo )se sentiwey

dna

emirc .s en uoires r u od e t i mW l hcraes noitcaretnic snerof

smret

yl apicn rp ot 'tretsi " .seirogetac e n dive s en uoir s emirC saw

osla

de a sa a laitnetop nevig elbair v noitcare n sti ecnatropmi ot

ecilop

dna srotagi sevni crime srenimaxe yrota b l ni hci w gnid ce

lacisyhp

ecn dive ot dna rehtag ot ezylan nosret P( , . l at e

1984).

ehT cisnerof noitcaretni ecn div selbair v rehto iw

demus a

lacits ats ecna if g s ni gni alpxe esac niemoctu owt fo eht

evif

seti yduts (~ansa ytiC dna weN Haven). In sa n K City, eht

ecn serp

ro ecn sba fo a trope yrota b l (FEv~) stcaretni htiw

stnem ta s

der t u yb tnad ef d eht )1vEI( ot tcef a esac .emoctuo

,yl acif epS

ti si in eht fo ecn sba a er hw tnem ta s tnad ef d eht ecn serp fo

a

trope yrota b l si detaicos with na do hilek desa rcni fo

-civnoc

noit dna sti ecn sba detaicos htiw rewol setar fo

.noitc vnoc
-- - -
___________-__---- --
-- - -

ehT rehto tnacif ngis noitcare n

sekat ecn dive cisnerof gnivlo ni

w e N neic a l p er hw ,nevaH s t c a r e t n li V E F htiw emirc s en uoir s (SER~)

 to influence case outc me. Recal tha the orig nal seriousnes

variable was constructed ordinal y, clas ifying of ense from least to

most serious. Our bivariate examination of this seriousnes variable

and conviction rate found theirs to be a =-linear relationship. That

is, conviction rate di not always consi tently increase (or decr ase)

as.crimes became more or les seriou . As a result, we employed thre

dif er nt coding schem s: SERl (the orig nal ordinal vari ble); SER2 a (

cubi transformation) which clas if ed the most and least serious crimes

in the same category; and SER3 w h i c h e m p l o y e d a quadratic transformation

to plot crime seriousnes . SER3 w o u l d e m r g e as the best "fit for the

data if there wer owt changes in direction of a curve plot ing crime

seriousnes by rate of conviction. In other words, as of ense become

more serious, rates of conviction might rise, then fal , only to rise

ag in.

In New Haven, FEVl (pres ncelabsence of a lab repo t) interacts

with SER2 (which clas ified progres ively more and les serious case

into the same category) in its ef ect on conviction. Here ti si the

absence of a laboratory report which combines with the most and least

serious cases to reduce the likeliho d fo a conviction. The most se-

I rious of ense would i n c l u d em u r d e r s a n d other violent crimes com it ed

i
with a firearm and which resulted in great bod ily injury. The least

serious of ense are thefts a n dm i n o r property crimes. The presence of

a laboratory repo t tended to "smo th out" this rela,tionship by main-

tain g higher conviction r a t e s at both ends of the seriousnes

 ehT stcef E fo cisneroF ecn divE no ytil ba orP of

noitc v C

The selbaneosla noitauqe nois erg cits gol su ot etami se

eht

ytil ba orp of gni ag a noitc vnoc er hw selbair v tned pedni are-set

ta debircserp .slev l slev "debircse p" es hT era tahwemos

yra tibra

dna yam eb s'eno pu gnid ep d eirav .tser tni In eht

gniwol f

"lacipyt" ,elpmax selbair v lacirogetac er w tes ta rieht ladom

slev

dna elbair v suo nit oc eht )ega( ta sti 01.naem eW tsrif enimax
eht

tcef e fo eht ecn serp ro ecn sba fo a yrota b l trope (FEV1)

e h tn o

ytil ba orp of noitc v e h tn i airoeP yduts .etis nI siht

,elpmax

eht ytil ba orp fo noitc v se a rcni 18 stniop egatnecr p morf(

%17

to 8 9 % ) , nehw setar noitc v f o s t r o p e y r o t a b u ol h t i w s e a c era

y r o t a b h lt i w e s o h t i w d e r a p m o c
.stroper

ehtgniyolpmE same noitauqe ew can tset eht tcef fo an

-aicos a

evit su rev gnid f yrota b l evita cos n a troper (FEV2). htiW

eht

tes elbair v tned pednig niamer ta eht same sa slev ni

eht

elpmaxesuoiverp dna( ,)O=lVEF ew dnif eht noitc v rate eb ot 59%

nehw eht yrota b l troper evita cos n sdleiy dna stlu er %59
nehw

eht trope cif tneics evita cos sdleiy .stluser nI Peoria,

,erof ht

it sraep taht ti si eht tne oc fo yrota b leht trope (FEV~)

hci w

eht s rex reta g no tcef noitc v

.etar

tI si e v i t a m r o f n is l a ot enimr t d eht stcef vitaler fo

hcus

rehto cisnerof selbair v sa gnita mircn

elbignat d stnem a s

.ecnedive ,niag ecnO gnit es eht selbair v tned pedni ta

emas eht
su rev gnita mirc a gni am d )tnem ta s si nev :retaerg %39
su rev

%26 nehw se ac htiw gnitanim rcni snoi s mda era detsar noc
esohtiw

er hw tnadnef d eht sekam ylno a gni am d .tnem ta s elbignaT

,ecn div

,rev woh is a erom lufrewop elbair v gnihsup up setar noitc vnoc

ot

tuoba %79 derapmoc ,tnes rp nehw htiw %17 nehw

.tnesba

eW are elbaosla ot ehte amitse tcef of

ecn dive cisnerof

snoitcaretni no noitc vnoc n si e t a r eht owt snoitc dsiruj er hw yeht

era

yl acits ats .tnacif ngis nI sa n K City is it er hw eht

sah tnad ef d

der f o no tnem ta s ot seit rohtua ehtaht ecn sba/ecn serp fo a

yrota b l troper (FEV~) sekam sti rojam .tcapmi gnit eS

-if ngis rehto

tnac selbair v elbignat( noitacol ,pihsnoitaleroi p ,ecn dive

fo

dna tser a roirp lanim rc )drocer ta rieht ladom ,seulav ew dnif

eht

noitc v se a rced etar %17 morf ot 52% nehw se ac htiw

yrota b l

strope are htiw detsar noc esoht .tuoh iw er hW eht tnad ef d

seod

ekam ,tnem a s noitc vnoc setar era detav le yltaerg (in s ecxe
fo

90%) rof all ,seac e h td n a ecn ref id edam yb trope cisnerof eht
si

lamin yl autca( eht noitc vnoc rate rof

s t r o p e y r o t a b h lt i w s e a c

si ylthgils n a h tr e w o l se ac rof y r o t a b u ol h t i w
.)stroper

nI weN nevaH ew dnif taht lVEF htiw stcaretni SER2 ni sti tcef
no

.noitcivnoc SER2 s e t a c i d n i taht noitc v setar era rewol sa

se n f o

htob emoc b yrev dna suoires ta on la .suoires tcef hT fo

eht

FEVlSERZ noitcaretni si taht eht noitc v etar fo se ac htiw

-obal

yrota strope sniamer ylmrofinu hig dna st i er eht SER2 d n e r t

rof

setar ewol of se n f o sa noitc vnoc erom emoc b ro .suoires el

nehW

ekam stnad ef d no ,stnem a s dna er hw se ac are ta rep u eht dna

,- -- - -

rewol- fo-sdne -eht seri-ous=e-ss c ~ o n t i ~ , coFv~ct

noI setar are
-xorp a

yletami -
98I nehw stroper era tnes rp dna 91% when yeht are .ton
 nI sum, ,neht eht ecnatropmi fo eht forensic sraep lb irav ot
eb

along primy eht trope n/trope nois em d )1VEF( naht re

eht

tne oc fo eht ;trope ,.e.i fi eht trope detaicos eht tnad ef

htiw

eht crime ro ton (FEVZ). It dluohs eb noted, ,rev woh tah ni ~eoria

wher htob lVEF dna ,tnacif g sera ZVEF FEV2 si eht tna imod fo
eht

.owt

repot/n Th trope cisnerof elbair v (FEV~) htiw detcar ni

rehto

selbair v tned p i owt ni snoitc d ruj ot

tnacif g s a ecudorp

tcef .noitc v no nI sa n K City, s ti stnad ef r hw make no

stnem a tah sah lVEF sti yrami p tcef -- gnirewolyapicnr
nehw setar noi c v .tnesba skrow lVEF ,nevaH w N nI ot kep
-civnoc

noit setar hig ta eht em rtx sdne fo eht

,er hw mu nit oc s en uoir s

tuoh iw yrota b l repots, er ht si n o i t c v r o f y c n e d ta setar

ot

s i y l adneAt g r fo
se n f O cif epS

eW also re ni dets r ni how eht ecn ulf i fo cisnerof and

rehto

smrof fo ecn div thgim esn f o pu gnid epyrav .epyt ruO survey
fo

crime dnuof sr tce id yrota b l e s th a ev il b srenoit carp

-nerof

ecn div s to eb g n i d c e n i t a rs o pm i eht semoctu fo

-gurd

rape nd homice relatd, case). yehT ecn div c snerofv il b ot

eb

fo moderat ecnatropmi ni sno ra and seiralg ub and

e c n al t rm oi p

ni seir b o ,seir t ab det varg and

.sein cral

nI siht section se n f o ralim s etag r ew ehtmorf five

-fid
- - -- - - - - ----- --- --
- - -

tner f &ts seti ot se how s e l b a i r v t n e d sp u o i r a v operat

niht w eht seirog tac esn f o yrami p fo murde,

tpme a
 ,yreb o ,epar ,yret ab detav rg / ed um d n ay r l g u b
l .duarf/tfeht

stlu er hT are detn serp ni elbaT

8.4.

eurT ot form, stnem a s 'stnad ef evorp ot eb a lacit r

-xe

yrotan lp s orca mrof all .seirogetac esn f o Of eht e rht

seimot hcid

examind, eht hci w eno st ar noc eht tnad ef d gnikam rehti a

gni am d

tnem a s ro thgirtuo htiw nois ef c esoht er hw ehs/eh made on

-eta s

tnem ta la )1VEI( sah tse a rg ,ytil baz ren g gni rem sa a

-if ngis

tnac n ir o t c d e p ruof esn f o etar p s seirogetac tpmet a(

,red um

yralg ub ,yreb o dna

theft).

The ne wt b noitc s d gnikam a gni am d ecnar t u an d

thgirtuo

nois ef c )3VEI( si tna ropmi ni e rht seirog tac esn f o - murdes,

dna separ .stfeht sihT e v i ts uk anm sen, ylra ucit p rof

sred um

dna rapes, er hw ti is ton l at nom c u rof stnad ef ot

egd lwonkca

ni t em vlo ni eht deg l a lanim rc :tca ,seY" I tohs )depar(

eht

victm, tub ti saw esn f d les ehs( ) g n i l i sw a ." Such

era snoi mda

ylba orp gni am d s el ni red um or snoitucesorp e ar naht fi

ralim s

snoi mda fo er w noitap c r made ni yreb o a ro burglay

er hw

tne i yam eb more ylisae s ' t n a d e f d e h yt b d e r f n i noitap c r

ni

.tcaeht

The noitac l e h tf o s e g r mt es r a
y r o t a n l p x e t n a r o p em hi n a s

elbair v ni eht e rht seirog tac esn f o gnivlo ni eht gnikat fo

yenom

ro ytrepo ,yreb or( yralg ub dna )tfeht . e p sa ur l p eW know taht

eht

suce ecilop f ni solving ytrepo segnih netfo semirc upon

rieht

make to abily .snoi eh rp a dipar tI ,o t sraep taht

nga i k m

en cs-no tser a spleh se esoht hguor t s er a ot lufs ec

-ucesorp
--
-
. n o i t __ _ yawA _ _ from eht sceae-arrests-oE-robbe~s~burglars-
and-thievsr

with asocited a tsoh fo s entiw dna ecn div smelborp whic era
-s el
 Table 8.4

Conviction: Stepwise Logistic Regres ion by Of ense Type

(~og Od s)

A l l Case

tA t Murd/ Theft/

Murder Ag Bat Rape Rob ery Burglary Fraud

Conviction Rate 77% 76% 70% 77% 84% 81%

Forensic Evidence -.60Yr -- 72" - -- 51*" -1.12""

(FEv2) (FEv1 IEV2) (FEV1) (FEV2)

Eyewitnes es -- 1.21" -- -- .52* --

Tangible Evidence -- -- -- .3Z9' -- --

(TEV 1)

Ar ested at/near

Crime Scene -- -- 87" 72"" a 74?'c" 749~7'~

Predicted

Proba il ties 65% 39% 69% 62% 68% 63%

Mode 1
Chi Square 10.17"" 10.34"" 23.98'k* 63.73"" 53.53** 45.05""

- - - - .

"* Signif cant a t .O1 (a) IEVl

* Signif cant at .05 )b( IEVZ

 den nehw redn f o eht si thguac ."dednah-der" ,yltnedivE eht emas
si

eurt rof snoitucesorp epar tub ton s e m i rt cn e l o i v r e h t o h c u s r o f

sa

tpme ta ,red um red um dna detav rg a yret ab s n o i e h r p ae r h w

e ht a

en cs era dna ecalpnom c ton yliras ec n -evitacidni fo

eht

s'tnad ef d
.tliug

The ytil ba i va fo se ntiwey sevorp ot n i t n a c i f n g i se b

-erp

gnitc d eht noit sop id f o

d n as e i r t d e a b v a r g a / s r e d u m t p m e t a

,seiralg ub e l b i g n a td ecn dive laicur ni eht noitucesorp fo

-bor

.seireb roF elbignat ecn dive it si eht ecn serp fo emos epyt fo
-sa

elbignat evita cos lairetam )1VET( ton dna sti ytil ba ot

ylevisu cno

etaicos a tnad ef d eht htiw eht en cs (TEV~), hci w si .lacit rc Two

ega ,selbair v cihpargomed dna race, tnacif ngis era ni gni alpxe the

semoctu fo seiralg ub dna .separ stnad ef d regnuoY era erom yleki

ot

eb detcivnoc fo d n as e i r a l g r u b kcalb stnad ef d erom era yleki ot

eb

detcivnoc fo
.epar

A sah elbair v cisnerof a tnacif ngis main tcef ni gnitc derp

esac ,sred um rof emoctu seiralgrub . s t f e h td n a sred um roF

dna

,stfeh it si 2VEF hcihw(

rehto morf sgnid f evita cos a seh iugn tsid

yrota b l )stroper hci w si detaicos rehgi htiw noitc v

.setar

roF ,red um elbair v tnacif ngis rehto eht gnit es )3VEI( ta sti
ladom

lev gnitanim rcni( ,)tnemetats we esa rcnisetar noitc vnoc dnif

4%
morf( 95% ot )%9 nehw ew se ac hsiugn tsid er hw evita cos ano
-obal

yrota era strope htiw nes rp esoht ehtrehw

ehts aicos a trope

tnad ef d htiw .emirceht nI a y l e k is l e er hw ,noitau s eht

-dnef d

tna sekam ylno a gni am d ,tnem a s setar noitc vnoc pid ot 38% nehw a

evita cos ano bal troper si ,tnes rp derapmoc with 90%

eno hw

.tnes rp
 For thef s/ rauds, we set other signif cant indep nde t variables

ta their modes (def n a t makes no sta em nt and si not ar ested

ta

scen fo crime) and contras conviction rates wher laboratory repo ts

are is ued tub fail t oa s o c i a t e the def nda t with the crime and those

wher they .od Employing thes controls, the conviction rate increas

from %19 to practi al y 10 % with the pres nce of a lab repo t as ociat-

ing the def nda t with the crime. We su pect the reason FEVZ dominates

for this of ense category is t h e s i z e a b l en u m b e r fo fraud case , such as

the pas ing fo bad checks and use fo stolen credit cards, wher ti
si

routine to link the def ndant to the crime through an examination

fo

handwrit ng.

This distinction si lost in burgla ies wher the pres nce of any
forensic repo t )1VEF( si as ociated with signif cantly higher convi -

tion rates. Case without laboratory eports result in convictions 78%

of the timewhile those w i t h reports lead to conviction %59 of the time

and wher no witnes es are pres nt, the of ender si not ap reh nde at

the scen and the d fendant makes no sta em n .

The forensic variable also interacts with the def nda t sta em nts

variable in the crime fo rape to pr duce a signif cant ef ct on convic-

tion. tI si wher the def ndant of ers an alib to law enforcem nt

authorit es tha the absence of a laboratory eport si a s o c i a t e wd i t h

signif cantly lower conviction rates (from %78 to 36%). Because most

laboratory reports is ued in conjunction with a rape rosecution cent r

on the pres nce ro absence of sem n ni thevictim (yield ng an "iden-

tif ca on") and seldom are suc es ful in as ociating the def ndant with

it is not surp is ng tha FEVl em rges as the crit cal forensic

vari ble.

19 2
 nI sum, t si the in esn f o categoris fo murde, yralg ub and

tfeh exrtswh vidnc fores a main tcef no .noitc v In

sred um and thefs, t si eht of cnte eht laborty trope whic

makes eht difernc, while ni burglay ti si eht ~res nce/absence fo

a

whic repot laby si .tna ropmi nI rape, eht varible

fonsc

withdefnasm interacs ni sti tcef on case

.noit s p d

tI si wher eht defnat sref o an ib la ot wal oficals

enrmt

tah eht presnc/ab fo a laborty trope si

.lacit r

Sumary

Thefocus fo siht uponhasbecvit haper -- whetr a

defnat si orcnvited ton and covite, eht influecg

ators

tah .nois ced We have thisuexamnd ni sitefor

dn ive

ofcaserngulth and rof acros getdfnspci

la

.snoitc d ruj

Ourdat -- based upon eht ofiles ca omprehnsivdul

prosecut -- yield a andbothcmplex iur .et lpmocni pictureTh

si becaus incomplet so andmy evitr lage - rtx factors

-ca

countfr so oflite eht decison varth ot convit or not

to .tcivnoc The picture si becaus omplx a wide rang fo varibles

emrg as of
predicts mal, b signfcty

.noitc v

makes vidnc Fores a minal cotrbu ot decison th

ot

convit ro not cvi dual .stnad ef only I one site --

Peoria -- does evidncfors (FEV1 and F E V ~ ) as emrginfct

ofcase,rngtih with FEV2 great h xin -ulfni

 .ecne nI owt sa n K ,snoitacol n it d a City dna New ,nevaH
lVEF

htiw stcaretni rehto selbair v s t in tcef esacno .emoctuo

er hW

FEVl stcaretni htiw elbair v ecn dive r htona (IEv~) it si when

taht

elbair v si ni sti eta s eka w taht eht ecn sba fo

ecn dive cisnerof

sdael ot a enilced tnacif ngis ni noitc vnoc .setar The ytil ba

ot

nialpxe eht nois ced ot tcivnoc si ylthgils ret b ralim s nehw

se n f o

morf tner f id eht snoitc dsiruj era .detager ga nopu gnid ep D

eht

esn f o ,yrogetac rehti eht ecn serp fo a troper flesti ro

t n e o c sti

sknil tnad ef d eht ot eht ,emirc sevird pu noitc v .setar

yl ausU

a er hw cisnerof elbair v n os t c a sti ,nwo ti si sti ecn serp

hci w

setav le noitc v rates; er hw ,rev woh it htiw stcaretni

rehtona

ecn dive mret it is nehw taht elbair v rehto si ni a

n o i t d n oec k a e w

taht ecn sba e h t fo cisnerof ht elbair v o t sdael rewol

noitc v

.setar

stnem a tnad ef D sa egr me eht tsom yltne si oc -- d n a tsom

yl ufrewop -- evitcderp .elbair v In hcae site, stnad ef d who -ni

etanim rc sevl smeht ot eht ecilop -- rehtie g n i a m hd t i w stnem a ro

snoi sefnocthgirtuo -- pleh tcivnoc .sevl smeht sihT si osla eurt nehw

se n f o era detag r a dna .yltned pednie maxe elbignaT

ecn dive

gnik l eht tnad ef d with selcitra s hcus ,mitc v/emirc eht fo

-htolc

,snopaew ,gni ro sde corp fo eht crime, setubirtnoc sla

- c i v n o dc r a w o t

rehtar noit .ylmrofinu ,yl aniF stnad ef d lufht oy (20 sraey and

)regnuoy era ta ksir ehgi fo noitc v naht redlo stnad ef ni

tsom

.setis ,srotuce P ,ralucitrap ni yam eb gnid opser to

- f o lufht y

sredn f ton sa "sdik" de n i fo ecnah dnoces a tub as tneloiv

-dnef o

sre ,ohw fi a nevig "dnoces" dluow ,ecnah kaerw e n ia l fo

s orca or et

rieht evitc ps r
.seit num oc
 The decision to convict si a crucial one for def ndants. But also

of importance are the charges fo which the def ndant si convicted and

the sentence imposed. The role of forensic evidence, other evidentiary

factors, and extra-lega variables in the charge reduction and sentenc-

ing phase is examined in the fol owing chapter.

 NOTES

1. l its e aC gnid ep ta eht emit r u fo noitcel at d are

.de ulcxe
d e u lo cs x A are se ac ni hci w eht tnad ef d depmuj liab
ro
deliaf ot raep ni
.truoc

.2 stnad ef tcivno U can eb dehsinup hguor t ,yl amrofni such

sm inahce sa yenrot a fes, t r u o cd e t a p e r aperncs,

hsac
,dnob .cte se ylan roF fo yel F e s , iht ;)9791( also,

b o c da nJ n i e t s n e i E )7 91( .
3. ehT read elbaT w iv dluohs 1.8 a dn tneuq sbu elbat elbaT(
8.2)
whic setalub t-s orc suoirav slev f o
noitc v dna ec div elbignat
with rates, ,noituac y e h tr o f od not lortn c for ,yraitned v r hto
extra dna l ge srotcaf ihpargomed n i detc les .se ac Given
ehtaht
tsurht s i h ft o trope si on lacisyhp ew ,ecn div
te ns h r p
etair v b lait n .se ylan Howevr, eht stcef fo
es ht
varibles no noitc v t es bu m der pmet y b noitared snoc fo
rehto
case
.selbair v

.4 This si t s r i fe h t fo ynam secnats i ni e rh t w d n a l k O very

hgi
noitc v l a et r tub
evitc f gniyf t eds ulc rp
srotanim cs d fo su rev noitc v
.noitc vnoc- n

5. Prio droce si etairpo der isnoc ot eb o t n ei k a t

tnuoc a
snoi ced gnic et s ni tub( es l er aF dna 1978, Swigert
tub
&r gnidra e snoi ced ni .noitc vnoc

6. Pearson stneic f o n italer oc er w snoita bm c l a rof detupmoc

fo selbair v tned p i and yna sriap an with gnide cx r
07.
wer detalosi and eno fo o w te h detanim l se bair v from

.si ylan nI e r w s e n c oa t i lVEFeht ro varibles FEV2

dnuof
ot eb suficently raenil oc ot
noita m le s'r htie atis ec n
the from .si ylan tsoM secnat i fo devlo ni yt raenil oc
eno
fo eht selbair v cisnerof 1VEF( ro )2VEF
c i s n e r o fa d
interaco mret hcus( sa FEV~TEV~). fI such sriap wer

corelatd, eht elbair v yrami p saw dna e iat r eht

noitcare
mret
.detanim le

7. We ed h ts u LOGIST erud co p ot eht if cits gol multipe

regsion ledom ot a single yranib 0( ro 1) tned p

.elbair v
We detc l ot esu eht stepwi erud co p ot ehtnimr ed
tseb
varible ot eb de a ot ledom eht ta given ay .pets Maximu

detupmoc era setami do hilek ni siht gnisu er d co p

eht
noshpaR- tweN .dohtem The ledom ihc square si eciwt
eht
difernc ni gol do hilek fo l e d o m l a n i fe h t morf
eht
do hilek desab t p e c r n oi .ylno
"seit l ba orP detci rP" hT
staic si egatn cr p eht fo tnadroc sriap coretly detci rp
ye bh t

8. Eisent dna bocaJ : 7 9 1 () 2 4 2 osla fo elt i den alpx

eht
variton noitc v ni ni seti r eht %21( ni Baltimore, %51
ni
Chicago, %71 ni Detroi, tna im rcs d elpit um gnisu functio

)si ylan .
9 1 6

9. ehT detciderP" "seit l ba orP r o fx e d n i hcae fo eht

sledom
stne rpe eht fraction fo tnadroc sriap fo
detciderp
seit l ba orp .se nopser dna ehT s e t u p m o ac r g p l a c i t s a t s a

ytil ba orp fo noitc v

selbair v ehtgniyolpme sac yrev rof
de ulcni ni .ledom eht se aC htiw a .5 ytil ba orp fo
noitc v
ro rehgi are detci rp ot tluser ni ;noitc v htiw esoht
s el
naht a .5 era ytilbaorp detciderp ot tluser ni a
.noitc vnoc n
The detciderp" erusa m "seit l ba orp is detaluc a by gnikat
eht
rebmun fo yltcer o s m ctuo esac detciderp de iv yb
latoeht
rebmun fo snoitc derp )sesac( .
ecniS tned ped ruo )noitcivnoc( era selbair v skewd, o
eno
thgim argue taht simply yb gnitc derp se ac dluow tluser
ni
noitc v dluow a yield tcer oc egatn cr p noitc derp fo
morf
69% ni Kans ytiC ot 91% ni .dnalkaO hcus g ohtlA an

lacitero h a decison elur thgim dael ot a rehgi egatnecr p

fo
tcer oc ,snoitc derp ti dluow d e t i m v la h value
lanim rc ot
srehc a r ecitsuj ro srekam ycilop ecnis ti sliaf ot
yfitnedi
esoht hci w srotcaf help ro emoctu esac ni lpxe rieht
evital r
evitc d rp .shtgnerts tA serutcn j nois ced
t n e d p e d rh et w
elbair v si erom ,detubir s d ylnev sti fo egatn cr p
tcer oc
snoitc derp dluow eb decu r dna aproch
.%05

.01 roF eht elpmax given ni t n e d p e d n ,i t x e h t selbair v

er w
tes ta eht gniwol f
:slevel

lVEI = 1 tnadnef d( sekam no )tnem ta s

IEV3 = 0 ylno( tnad ef d eno elbair v tnem a s si
der isnoc ta a
)emit
AGE = 27 eht( mean ega fo la )stnadnef d
lVET = 1 (no elbignat )ecnedive
lVEF = . 5 eht(
,1- st ar noc elbair v cisnerof "rehto"

evita cos h" iw strope yrota b l

)stroper
NEWID = 1 eno( ro erom )se sentiw
RELAT = 1- (no tcepsu /mitc v roi p

)pihsnoitaler
PROXCIM = 1 eht( tnad ef saw ton de n h rp a
ta eht crime
)enecs
SERl = 4- (a minor tfeh ro )yralgrub

fo ytil ba orp ehT convit yam eb des rpx yb eht

gniwol f
:noitauqe

gol p = -) 8 2 . ( )1VEI( -) 6 4 . ( )3VEI(

P-1
- (.02) (AGE) + (.81)) 1 V E T ( + (.33) )1VEF(

+ ( . 4 6 ))M I R C X O R P ( - ( .lo) (SER )1 +

62.1
)tpecretni(
 Wher FEVl = -1: p ytil ba orp( fo )noitcivnoc = golitna .396 = 2.488 = .71 9B
(no yrota b i golitna( .396)+1 3.488
)troper

Wher FEVl = .5: p ytil ba orp( fo )noitcivnoc = golitna .891 = -

7.78 = .89
yrotarobal( golitna( .891)+1 8.78
)troper

.1 We simply deta ilosn c la semirc fo eht same e h t m o re fp y t

evif
snoitc d ruj nar-e dna ruo esiwp t .snoi serg eW
ton di
thgiew ro etalupin m ruo delpmas se ac ni any rehto fashion
sa
eno dah luow ruo seti ne b rof nesohc rieht
s en vita es rp
fo truoc and s o r c as m e t y s r o t a b l .noitan eht era W simply

gniko l
seinol f detc l s ni epyt
rof "sdnert" ni eht
dna
snoitub r noc
ruo at d dluohs
fo
ecn div suo ra
eb dew iv sa
.hcus I
 CHAPTER
XI

CHARGE REDUCTION AND SENTC:

THE INFLUENC OF FORENSIC EVID NCE, CONTROL ING FOR

OTHER EVIDENCE DNA EXTRA-L G FACTORS

Introduction

In this chapter our focus si upon sentence and the factors tha

influence .ti eW considerp incipal y the role of forensic evid nce,

control ing for other evidentiary vari bles and extra-l g factors,

akin to our an lysi in t h ep r v i o u s chapter. We also examine the

interveni g influenc of charge reduction upon sent ce, including the

evidentiary and extra-l g factors as ociated with charge reduction.

Our working hypothesi si tha forensic evid nce (along with a range of

other factors) makes a signif cant dif er nce in the charge reduction

and sentencing decis on . We would exp ct the influenc of forensic

evidence t ob e particularly vis ble ni the area fo charge reductions.

Wher forensic evid nce, especial y as ociat ons, exist , the frequency

of charge reductions -- al other things being equal -- should be lower,

since the sta e's case can be presum d not to eb weak. tA sentencing

directly, f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c me a y also make a dif er nc . The certainty

tha the def ndant com it ed the of ens , which forensicevidence

sometimes provides, may induce the judge to incar e at the d fenda t

rather than grant probation or, wher incar e ation si mandated, to

increase the length fo incar e tion.

I Sent cing: An Overview

I tahW sentences do def ndants rec ive, fi they are convicted? In

I most of our res arch site , incarceration

91 9
was the norm ni
1981.
Sometimes, as i nO a k l a n d and Peoria, county jail time was more like y to

be imposed than sta e prison. Overal , thoug , the majority fo convic-

ted ef ndants served some time (after conviction) in al sites but

Kansa City. The figures range Erom 79% of convicted def ndants incar-

cerated in Oakland to 41% in Kansa City. The rates of incarceration

for Chicago )%37( and New Haven (69%) ap roachOakland; in Peoria, ti

si

lower (63%). Infer nces about c o m p a r t i v eh a r s h n e s ro leniency acros

sites should not be drawn Erom thes d a t , h o w e v r , f o r t h em i x fo

of ense also varies acros site . Chicago and Oakland, which ave the

highest incarceration rates, also have the ighest concentration of

serious, violent of ense , suchas murder, rape, ag rav ted as aults,

and armed rob eries (ref to Table 4.1). Yet when we compare the rates

fo incarceration for specif c of ense acros sites, theg neral pat ern

remains. Table 1.9 pres nts rates of incarcerationfor def ndants

convicted ni six dif er nt types of case by :etis Oakland frequently

has the highest incarceration rate by crime type, especial y for les

serious of ense such as burglary and thef . Sim larly, Kansa City has

a typical y low rate of incarceration, ev n for the most serious of en-

ses uch as at empt murder and rape.

Length o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n a l s ov a r i e s s h a r p l y a c r o s sites. Overal ,

ti si longest in Chicago wher the mean si slightly under 6 years

(70

months) , £01 lowed by Kansa Ci ty 75( months) , NewHaven 04( months) ,

Peoria 13( months), and Oakland 42( .)shtnom Ther si great variance

around thes means howev r, as Figures 9.1-9.5 il ustra e. The distrib-

utions are highly skew d, often with a large concentration of sentences

at the low end 1( year or les , county jail .)emit This is particularly

true in Oakland, wher ther are very few long sentences ( 5 years +).
 Table 9.1

Likel ho d fo Incar e ationUp

Conviction yb Site Contr l ing for
Type fo Of ens

Of ense

Type
Chicago Oakland Kans City Peoria New Haven

tA temp Murder/

.g A Bat ery
80% 65% 41% 67% 83%

Rape
95% 74% 39% 91% 59%

Armed Rob ery

89% %69 75 % 95 % 83%

Rob ery
70% 89% 55% 100% 73%

Burg1 ary
80% %58 39% 74% 70%

Theft
50% 8 1% 41% 50% 46%
 Chicago, by contras , si dram tical y dif er nt from the other site ,

having few short sent ces 1( year or les) and mostly interm diate and

long sent c .

Again, thoug , infer nces about relative sentence s verity acros

site should not be drawn from thes dat. When sent ces are broken

down yb type fo of ens , howev r, sim lar pat erns emrg, Oakland

remains the most leni t site acros types of of ens , as Table 9.2

revals. For six d f er nt of ens for which w e have suf ic ent sen-

tenci g dat , Oakl nd def nda ts rec ived the shortes sent ces
fo

incar e ation, on averg. (Recal , thoug , tha more def nda ts are

incar e at d in Oakl nd t h a n y w h e r els , s u g e s t i n g tha short terms

fo incar e ation are often used iOna k l a n d ni lieu of probation

.)enola

The dat also rev al tha Chicago si g e n r a l y t h e toughest site; this

si true for al of ens exc pt armed rob ery a n d simple rob e y.

Inter stingly, thes d a t beli the gen ral presumption tha sent ces

aremo leni t in large metrop litan are s. Chicago, in particular,

does not fol ow this pat ern, given its high rate of incar e ation
)%37(

and long sent ces (almost 6 years, on

.)egar v

Charge Reductions and Sentencing

Do c h a r g e r ductions mat er for sentencing? If ,os howmuch? And

for which decis on -- to incar e at or not, length fo incar e ation,

ro both? tA one lev , the answer to this basic question would se m

obvi us. Of course, charge reductions have sent cing impl cations;

ot-herw?s-e~hy-wou-1-d-c-OUT
ef- d na sfrwo-t uc e s-o rp s lt~c-a -

-- bother about.the )s(egrahc with w ich to convict a particular def n -

203
 Table 9 . 2

Mean Length of Incarceration (months)

by Site, Controlling for
Type of Offense

Offense
Type Chicago Oakland Kansas City Peoria New Haven

Attempt Murder/
Agg. Battery 53 mnths 19 mnths 41 mnths 38 mnths 23 mnths

Rape 179 57 163 80 36

Armed Robbery 93 35 133 122 48

Robbery 44 21 59 38 36

Burglary 44 14 36 25 34

Theft
 ant? Skeptics, howev r, including crit cs of the pl a bargain g

prc es , might argue tha charge reductions from the prosecutor are

mer ly il usion designed to induce def ndants to plead guilty, designed

to convi ce def ndants tha their at orney has obtained a "go d deal"

(Blumberg, 1967) when, in fact, such si not the case.

First, court actors do bother about which charges to convict .no

In thre sites -- Chicago, Oakland, and Peoria -- about 20% of convicted

def ndants are convicted of a "reduc charge. I Nn e w Haven, 30% of

def ndants are convicted on a reduced charge. In Kansa City, slightly

more than half fo convicted fendants )%75( are convicted of a reduced

charge. Thus, charge bargain g si an integral part fo plea bargain g

ni al sites, especial y i nK a s City. roF( our pur ose her , both

convict ons no les r, related charges (e.g., armed rob ery to rob ery)

and convictions on les r, unrelated charges ,.g.e( rape to at empted

rob e y) are treated as "charge reductions.

")

Secondly, sta e crim nal codes typical y encourage charge barg in-

ing, by provid ng for stif sentences for certain of ens . For exam-

ple, in Il inoisarmed rob ery is a "Clas X" o f e n s e (mand tory prison,

term fo 6 to 30 ears), but simple rob ery si not so designated ti( is a

"probati n- le" ofens). Likewise, residential burglary in Il inois

cal s for mandatory prison ( 4 to 15 ,)sraey but burglary fo other types

fo dwel ings does .ton Thus, ta least for some of ense charge barg in-

ing is likely to mat er simply because the sta e legislature has prov-

ide dif er nt punishments for sim lar of ens .

Final y, our dat verify tha charge reductions do lead to few r

insta ces of incarceration

.noiEiEZT~aCc-n'r-fo-secnetnes-retrohs-d-na .- -
able 9.3 il ustrates theas ociation betwe n charge reductions and

2Q5

 Table 9.3

Charge Reduction and

Likelihood of Incarceration

All Cases

Convicted On... Chicago Oakland Kansas City Peoria New Haven

Most
Serious Charge 71% 81 % 52% 66% 73%

Reduced Charge 69% 69% 31%

 like ho d fo incar e tion. In la site excpt Chicago, def nda ts

convicted only fo a reduc charge are les like y to be incar e t d.

The dif er nces are in the range fo 41-21 perc ntage points ni Oakl nd

and P e o r i a nd ful y 20 perc ntage points in New Haven and Kans City.

This pat ern, which em rg s for the ful sample fo case , also ap e rs

for specif ofens. O Ia nk l d , Kans City, Peoria, and New Haven

charge reductions are as ociated with a les r chan e fo incar e ation

for virtual y al of ens types -- burgla y, rob ery, thef , .cte -- for

which ther a r e suf ic ent numbers fo case and reductions. nI Chicago,

such a pat ern ap e rs for rob ery c a s e tub not f o ra n y other of ens .

Sim lar y, c h a r g e r ductions are as ociated with shorter sent ces

w h e n a def n a t si incar e t d. Table 9.4 pres nt thes dat. In al

site , withou exc ption, def nda ts convicted fo a reduc charge are

sentenced to les prison/jail .emit The dif er nces are typical y quite

,.egral on the orde fo four years in Kansa City, twoyears in Chicago

and Peoria. Only in Oakl nd and New Haven si the dif er nce rather

smal 1 -9( .)shtnom Again, thes pat erns remain consi ten acros

types fo ofens. Def nda ts convicted of a reduc charge rec ive

shorter time -- of ense yb of ens -- in Chicago, Kans C i t y and

Peoria. In Oakl nd and New Haven the pat ern holds for t hmeo r se-

rious, violent of ens tub not for property crimes.

In sum, c h a r g e r d u c t i o n sa r e b nefic al to def ndants in al

site . The advantage si particularly large in Kans City -- both for

like ho d fo i n c a r c e r a t i oan d l e n g t h of incar e tion. And ti is in

Kansa City wher charge r e d u c t i o n s oc ur most frequ ntly, sug esting an

inher en t tar i ona 1 yi t to the-~1a4rginpocs

t-dna 0-the201 e-OL

charge barg in g in tha proces.

 Table
9.4

Charge Reduction and

Mean L e n g t h of Incarceration
:;)shtnom(

Convicted On... Chicago Oakland Kansa C i t y Peoria New Haven

Most

Serious Charge

Reduc Charge 48.2 3.61

3.72

9: Employing a dif er nce fo m e a n s t es, al dif er nces wer found

to be signif cant ta the 1O. lev.

 A Path Model Ap roach

In an lyzing the factors tha influence charge reduction and sen-

tencing, we adopt the logic and techniques of path an lysi . For our

pur ose ni this chapter, we have simplif ed the an lysi to thre

stage. The last (dep n t) stage si sentence -- both the decis on to

incarcerate and the decis on regarding lengthof incar e ation. The

interveni g stage si charge reduction -- its pres nce or absenc . The

first stage si the set of evidentiary and extra-l g factors observ d

and an lyzed in the previous chapter on convict on. Thes variables,

themselves, could be sequenced ni a time-orde framework

(e.g.,

def nda t's age would be prio to incrim nating sta em nts, etc.),
tub

such refinem nts are un ec s ary for our more straightforward pur ose

her. Figure 9.6 il ustrates this model.

We have already established the links betwe n charge r duction and

sent cing. tA the bivariate lev , charge reductions are as ociated

with les frequent imposit on of incarceration and, wher incar e at d,

shorter time. Thus, the next question becoms: "what factors influence

whether a def ndant obtains a charge reduction or not?" For, the fac-

tors tha influence charge reductions influence sent cing. Final y, we

ad res whether thes evidentiary and extra-l g factors influenc

sentencing directly, indirectly (through charge reduction), or both. We

turn first to the relationships betwe n evid ntiary/extra-lega factors

1
and the likeliho d of charge reduction.

 Path Ilusrive Model: PotenialEfcs

of videnc,E lage - rtxE Factors,

dna
pharge Reduction Upon Sent cing

EVIDENCE

CHARGE REDUCTION SENTENCE

A

EXTRA-LEGAL
FACTORS 1
 Forensic Evidence and Charge Reduction

We would exp ct tha when forensic evid nce si pres nt, and as-

sociates the def nda t with the crime, the like ho d fo a reduc

charge dim n she . Table 9.5 pres nt the simple, bivar te rela-

tionships for each site. We find the expected pat ern in Oakl nd.

Def ndants are much more like y to be convicted on the most serious

charge when forensic evidence as ociates them with the crime/sc ne

)%68(

than for al other situa ions. In Peoria, eith r an as ociation or,

particularly, an identif cation (such as fo a control ed substance or

sem n) results in more convictions on the most serious charge. In both

Oakland and Peoria, the dif er nces are sta istical y sign ficant

.)10 .=p( Ther are no signif cant dif er nces in Kansa City or New

Haven, although in Kansa City the relationship ap ears ot be cur-

vil near (wher forensic evid nce testing results ni eith r an as oci -

tion or a failure to as ociate) charge reductions are less com on than

for situations wher laboratory result are les defin tive or absent

altogether.

In Chicago, ti si just the op osite with charge reductions more

com on wher the laboratory result either as ociate or fail to as-

sociate the def nda t with the crime. The lat er relationship si to be

exp cted, but the forme si directly contra y to what we would predict.

tI should be noted, thoug , tha both of thes categories have very

smal numbers of case in Chicago.

It is clear tha , just sa with conviction, the f o r e n s i vc a r i a b l e

-cano t-be-as sumed-t o-have-a-1-inear-e-1 ia - t w - p - i h s n o r-egrahc-ht-i educ

7noi-t

and it would ap ear the forensic evidence may work in c o m b i n a t i o nw i t h

211
 Table 9.5

Forensic Evidence and

Charge Reduction

Percentage of Defendants Convicted

on Most Serious Charge

Results of
Laboratory
Testing Chicago Oakland Kansas City Peoria New Haven

Association 58% 86% 56% 81% 64%

Identification/
Reconstruction 83% 61% 44% 91% 76%

No Evidence
Examined

Failure to
Associate

* Less than 10 cases.

 other vari bles in ts ef ct on the final c h a r g e for which the

def n a t si convi ted.

Tangible Evidenc , Other Evidenc and Charge Reduction

W e would sim lar y exp ct tha , w h e n t a n g i b l e v i d e n c e as ociates

thed f nda t with the crime/sc ne, the like ho d of a c h a r g e r duction

dim n she . This si true, howev r, only i nC h c a g o . Wher tangible

evid nce con lusively as ociates a def nda t with the crime/sc ne,
%78

fo C h i c a g o def nda ts a r e convicted on the most serious charge, compared

with 78% wher ther si no tangible evid nce link g def nda t and

crime. In our other site , howev r, ther si no relationship or

.dnert

Thus, wher as tangible evidence was a cru ial factor in the like ho d

fo conviction in the site (Table ,12.8 it si quite a marginal factor

ni

charge barg in .

We, also, examined the bivar te relationship b e t w e n av r i e t y

fo

other evid ntiary factors and the like ho d of charge reduction,

tub

the an lyse rev aled surp is ngly few expected findgs. Def nda t

s t a e m n t s , o crit cal to convict on, wer not sy tematical y

-sa

sociated with convict on o n m otsh e serious charge. Inde , ther was

no pat ern or relationship in any site. Likew s , the circumstances of

t h ea r s t -- specif al y, whet r the d fenda t was ap reh nde ta ro

near the crime scen -- g e n r a l y proved unrelated to c h a r g e r ductions

ylno( in Chicago wer d e f n d a n t s a p r e h n d e at/ne r the crime scen

les like y to obtain

.)snoitcuder

At-the-bi airav t e-l-eve-l~w e-d-i-d-f-i-nnd-fo~ot h T O X F Z d . i l s e wh i c hi ave

sign ficant relationship with charge reduction: s e r i o u s n e s of the

 incdet, roi p pihsno taler ne wt b eht dnat dnef d victm,

reht w

eht case saw desop i yb aelp ro dna ,lairt eht l a n i m r oc i p droce

fo

.tnad ef d eht ycneg it o es hT eras lbat deniat oc ni xidnep A

.XI

sihT gives su n o i t a c dy r n i m l e p a fo tahw e h t m o rc fe p x o t

-lum

tivare si ylan fo charge deniat oc n itcuder ni eht next

.noitces

A si ylanA etair v luM fo Reduction

Charge

sedivorp si ylan ois erg cits goL na tneic f sumary fo

eht

srotcaf charge nic eulfni ,noitcuder just sa ti di

ni oitc vn rof

suoiverp eht .retpahc Again, eht elbair v tned p si a .ymot hcid

tI

si skewd yl aitn sbu in ruof seti erehw( ne wt b 70% and 81%

fo

se ac no had egrahc ,)noitcuder tub rathe ylnev dive ni

sa n K

.ytiC elbaT 9.6 stne rp eht

.stlu er

No elgnis varible setubir noc to egrahc reduction s orca

la

site; ,de ni eht yrav s otcaf ni ecnatropmi strongly quie

etis morf

ot .etis selbair v owT -- s'tnad ef d eht roi p droce and eht

ecn sba/ e rp f o mitc v dna t dnef ne wt b pihsno taler i p --

make a tne si oc difernc ni e rht and seti ruof .ylevitceps r The

ecn s rp fo a roi p ne wt b pihsno taler tnad ef d and mitc v

-birtnoc

setu ot an esa rcni ni egrahc fo do hilek t reduction ni

,ogacihC

Peoria Oklnd, dna New .nevaH Wher eht sah tnad ef a roi p recod,

do hilek ht fo a charge seldniw noitcuder ,ogacihC ni sa n K City,

and New
.nevaH

The edom fo dispotn cae aelp( ro )lairt secn ulf i

eht

1 i-k-e-1-ih-0-0-d-orcha r ge r e tK-it Ed hr e se iteS,b3OtalWaySi n

eht

same .yaw In sa n K City and saelp ,airoeP more are evicudno ot charge

 Table
6.9

Charge Reduction: Stepwise Logist c Regr s ion yb Site

(~og Od s)

Al Case

Convict on on Chicago Oakl nd Kans City Peoria New Haven

Most Serious

charge 81% 76% 43% 7% 70%

Prio

Relationship : : - :+24 -- - 571'~~': - 7*

Prio Record "23. -- " 34 -- 42~t

,Case Dis-

posit on (trial)

Seriousne

fo Incide t

Forensic Evidenc

Eyewitnes -- *17.- -- -- --

Gend r (femal) 2. k y r " 8 -- -- -- --

Def nda t's -- -- -- -- 71" (c)
Sta em nt -.89"" )d(

Predicted

Proba il ties 82% 63% 69% 60% 78%

Model

Chi Square 36.56":" .93 ky*4 64. * >92 " 50.53 7.46 1
*ky

* Sign ficant ta 1O. )a( FEV2

-
tnacif ngiS- *
---.----- at 50. )b( FEVl SERl
--

(c) IEV2

(dl I E V 3
reductions, tub ni Chicago bench trials a r em o r e like y to gen rate

reductions. The Chicago - Kans City contras , in particular, ap e rs

to refl ct dif er nces in thepolit cal posture fo the two pr secuto '

of ices. In Kans City, prosecutors fairly readily agre to reduc

charges sa stand r practi e; thus, ther si lit e ne d for def nda ts

to ot trial ro( to se k reductions ta .)lairt In Chicago, charge

reductions h a v e b en an thema to he chief prosecutor, who -- regardles

of the particular incumbent -- has faced a hotly-contes d, partisan

race ni e a c h of the past four el ctions. Rather, ti ap e rs tha judges

take the prima y respon ib l ty for charge reductionsta (bench) trials

in Chicago, just as Chicago judges as umed the responsib lity to dism

ta( the prelim nary hearing) weak case prio to the advent fo prosecu-

torial felony review (Eisen t ina d Jacob,

1977).
Case seriousnes si a sign ficant predictor i n two locati ns. In

Peoria, the least and most serious of ens have the great s like ho d

o f a c o n v i c t i o n to the top charge. In N e wH a v e n , the quadr tic trans-

formation )3RES( fo our orig nal s e r i o u s n e sv a r i a b l e em rges, ind cat-

ing tha ta the low end of t h es r i o u s n e s scale, convict ons t o the top

charge d e c l i n e as crimes becom more serious; then rise in the mid-

s e r i o u s n e s range, only to tail of ag in ta the most serious lev.

The def n a t's race si a sign ficant predictor ni two locatins:

Oakland and Peoria. In both locations black def ndants are more like y

to be convicted of the top charge. The def nda ts' age makes a dif er-

enc ni Kansa City a n dN e w Haven, tub not in the s a m e .yaw Younger

def nda ts are more likely to obtain reductions in Kans City; older

def nda t s fare beetttter-in_New_Kav-en, --

 Forensic Evidenc

T h e o n l y s i t ew h r e f o r e n s i c e v i d n c e ex rts ma i n ef ct on

charge reduction si in Oakl nd. tI si her tah the pres nce fo a

labor t y repo t as ociat ng the d f n a t with the crime (FEV~)

-ni

creas the like ho d fo a c o n v i c t i o n t the op charge. When we

contras case with labor t y repo ts not showing an as ociation

-eb

twe n the def nda t and the crime with those tha od (contr l ing for

other factors), we se tha rates of convict on t o the top charge are

el vated by about 10% (from 87% to 98%). This ef ct si compar ble to

the one ex rted yb the yewitnes variable (contras i g case having no

ey witnes with those having one or more eywitns). We also

searched for interactions fo the t w o f rensic evid nce dichot mies (FEV1

and FEV2) and other evid ntiary vari bles.

I n the only jurisdiction (Kans City) wher a forensic vari ble

)2VEF( interacts with another evid nce vari ble )2VEI( , we find ti si

when the d fenda t of ers an alib to authorit es, in co tras to making

n o sta em nt, tha a lab repo t as ociating.the def n a t with the crime

ex rts a sign ficant ef ct -- el vating convict ons to the top charge

from 67% to 97%. So, consi ten with our find gs in the convict/no

convi t an lysi , we find the forensic evid nce xerts its maxi um

ef ct wher the other interactive (evidntary) term si (prosecut ial

speaking) weak st. The forensic/seriousnes interactions are many and

varied; the cl arest and most notable trend takes place inOakld.

Her , ti si the case withou labor t y repo ts whic result ni a

gorp rs e s-ive-ly-1-0 w e r r a t ~ ~ i ~ t l ~ t ~ t h e t ~ h a
re g as c as e sc e b ome

more serious (FEV~SER~). Case with labor t y repo ts fit this down-

ward trend in the les serious of ens categories tub have higher rates

fo conviction to the top charge as case becom more seriou . In

Chicago and Oakl nd FEVl interacts with the quadratic seriousnes

variable )3RES( ni s i m l a rw y s ; case with labor t y reports fit the

quadr tic trend :tseb convict ons to the top charge decline as crimes

ap roach the mid-seriousne range, r i s e as of ens becom more

-es

rious, only to decline once ag in sa of ens becom very seriou .

In sum, then, the pr senc fo a laboratory repo t, and to a les r

ext n a labor t y repo t tie ng the def nda t with the crime,
si

as ociated with hig er rates fo convict on to the top charge. In the

only jurisdiction (~ansas City) wher a forensic variable interacts with

a n o t h e r evid nce variable, the introduction of a laboratory repo t

link g the def n a t with the crime si as ociated with c o n v i c t i o n to

the top charge wher def ndants have of er d an alib to authori es.

The predomina t forensic interaction, though si w i t h c a s e s riousne ,

wher the impact of f o r e n s i c evid nce varies dep nding upon

jurisd ction.

The fraction of charge reductions explained yb the sev ral

vari bles r a n g e sq u i t e sharply, from a substantial %28 iCnh c a g o to

o n l y about %06 in Oakland and Peoria. Gen ral y, thoug , our set of

vari bles does slightly bet r predicting charge reductions than convi -

tion (Chapter .)I IV O n l y i nC h i c a g o a n d New Haven a r e charge reduc-

tions substantial y predictable. Curio sly, c h a r g e r e d u c t i o n s are les

like y to oc ur ni Chicago (19% fo al case ) than anywher

.esl
 Ag regated Of ense

Our abil ty to explain charge reduction si dim nished when sim lar

of ense typeare ag regated from t h e f i v e , d i f e r nj tu r i s d i c t i o n s able

9.7). We have les than 50/ suc es ni predicting convictions to the

top charge in the of ense fo murder, at empt murder and rob ery.

Noneth les , we find def nda t sta em nts and tangible evidence to be

sign ficant factors in thre of ense categories :hcae def ndant sta e-

ments ni at empt murder, burgla y and rob ery, and tangible evidence in

at empt murder, burglary and thef. In at empt murders we find the

making fo a dam gin sta em nt or outright confes ion to be as ociated

with conviction on the top charge. For rob eries and burglaries we find

the distinction betwe n t h em a k i n g fo a dam ging sta em nt and a con£ es-

sion to be crit cal; her a confes ion si as ociated with higher rates

fo conviction tothe top charge.

Any kind fo tangible evidence si as ociated with convictions to the

orig nal charge for at empt murderjag rav ted bat ery. For the property

of ens fo burglary and thef , ti is the dichot my (TEV~) which

distinguishes tangible evid nce tha tenta ively as ociates the def nd-

ant with thecrime from tha which conclusively as ociates thed fendant

with the of ense which is crit cal. Her , tangible evidence con lu-

sively as ociating the def nda t with the crime si as ociated with

convictions to reduced charges. One plausible explan tion f o rw h a t may

be termed an unexpected find g is tha such evidence encourages def nd-

ants to plea bargain which in t u r mn a y o f t e n lead toa reduction in

-
clsa-r g e s-in-ex c f-egnah p -o a - r - 1e h T - . - a e 1 y e a 1 a fact or wh i c h was
signif cant in more than a single crime category was prior relationship

 Table
7.9

Charge Reduction: Stepwise Logist c Regr s ion

yb Of ens Type

goL( Ods)

tA t Murd/ Theft/
Convict on on Murde Ag Bat Rape Rob ery Burgla y Fraud
Most Serious
Charge 47% 60% 59% 70% 73% 72%

T a n g i b l eE v i d e n c -- - "96 -- -- " 94 579:"

(TEV )1 (~EVZ) (~EVZ)

Forensic Evidenc -.65"" 1.48" -- -- )a("4 . .68"

(FEV~IEV~)
(FEV~IEV~) .92** ) b ( (FEV~IEV~)

Ar est d at/near

Crime Scen -- -- "30.1- -- -- --

Race

Predicted

Proba il ties 47% 45 % 52% 46% 67% 63%

Model

Chi Square 6. * k y 6 8 .41 869r* .1 67":* .71 'gr943 " 56.94 .43
" k ' 9 3
p p

** Sign ficant a 1O. )a( 1'VEF

* Sign ficant ta 50.

 betw n the def nda t and the vict m in the crimes fo rape and rob ery;

her , no prio relationship leads to convictions on the top charge.

Among the demographicvariables, only age proved signif cant ni more

than single of ens category. For burglaries and thef s, older de-

fenda ts are more like y to be convicted of top charges than younger

def n a ts.

Only in burgla y si forensic evidence (FEV1) as ociated (on its

)nwo with charge reduction. Her , laboratory repo ts are as ociated

with convictions ot the top charge. The pres nce fo a laboratory repot

increas the proba il ty fo conviction to the top charge by a hefty 20%

(from 72% to 92%) when control ing for other indep nde t vari bles.

This ef ct si compar ble, but not as great as, t h eo n ex rted by IEV3,

whic distinguishes dam ging sta em nts ut er d by the def ndant with

those wher outrigh confes ions are made, and TEV2, which distinguishes

tangible vidence tha tenta ively and conclusively links the def nda t

to the crime.

The forensic variable FEV2 interacts with the d fenda t sta em nt

variable in four dif er nt of ense categories. In al categories, save

for mu der, ti si the pres nce of a laboratory repo t as ociating the

def nda t with the crime in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h me o r i n c r i m n a t i n g of

two types of def nda t sta em nts tha convictions to the top charge are

signif cantly hig er. In murder, wher few r than half the def ndants

are convicted of the orig nal charge, as ociative laboratory repo ts

once ag in lead to convictions ta the higher charge, tub this time wher

def ndants are 3 co perative and refuse to make any sta em nts to

--- - -- - -- P---- --
 Consequently, we se tha ev n though the ~resencelabsence of a

labor t y repo t (FEV~) em rges as the only main f o r e n s i c eft

ni(

burglaies), ti si the F E V v2 a r i a b l e (keying on the content of the

report) which enga es in the most signif cant interactions with other

variables in the great s number of of ense categories.

Sent ci g: The D cis on ot Incarcerate

We have already demonstrated earlier ni the chapter tha charge

reductions are intimately as ociated with sent cing. But what of

evidentiary factors, including forensic evid nce, and extra-lega

variables? Are some of thes related ot sentencing directly, or only

indirectly through their impact on charge reduction, or both? We ad-

dres this question

.won

Sentencing in felony courts involves two distinct, fi relat d,

stage: (1) w h e t h e r or not to incarcerate a def ndant, and (2) if so,

for how long a .mret Prior res arch has ind cated, sometimes in a very

detailed way, tha the factors as ociated with thes two steps may vary

substantial y ,e s( e.g., Eisenstein and Jacob, ;7 91 Spohn -

te
-
al.,

1981). Thus, ti si ap ropriate tha the two stages be an lyzed sep-

ar tely, to tes for dif er ntial influenc s.

eW first examine the decis on whether to incarcerate or not. As we

n o t e d earlie , convicted ef ndants are likely to face imprisonment

ev rywher exc pt Kansa City. In Oakland %97 of convicted .def nda ts

are incarcerated; the figure drops to %37 in Chicago, %07 in New Haven,

ceration in both sta e prison as wel as county jails; nev rthel s , in

 htob stnad ef d ,secnats i are devom r morf eht ytinum oc

r i e h t ed sn oa l

mode rf rof a doirep fo

.emit

eW enimaxe nois ced eht o t

nois erg cits gol h uorht etar c a ni

. s i ,y el ra on f b s a , n i a g A ruo elbair v tned ped si ;ymot hcid a

ni

siht ,ecnats i s e tl a h w e m o s reil ae rof naht dew ks .se ylan

-ednI

tned p ro selbair v rotciderp edulcni eht l uf range fo

yraitnediv

,selbair v lagel-artxe ,srotcaf dna ecn serp eht ro ecn sba Eo a

egrahc

.noitcuder elbaT 9.8 stne rp

.stluser ht

droce roi P fo eht ton ,tnad ef d ,ylgnis rpu smlehwr vo

tsom

ni srotcafrehto eht nois ced . n o i t a r e c a tn ui o b a

,noitcuder g ahC

,o t sekam a r u o f n i n o i t a r e c a n ir o f e c n r e f i d seti l a( tpecx for

sa n K City). hguohtlA sti ecn ulfni is s el naht eht s'tnad ef

roi p

,droce ti rehgi sknar naht s en uoires ni tsom seti ni smret fo

sti

ytil ba ot noitarec a ni alpxe

.snois ced

ehT s en uoires fo tnedicn eht setubir noc sla ot eht

do hilek

n o i t a r e c a nfio ni la evif tub setis ot a tne x res l naht

roi p

droce dna .noitcuder egrahc The raenil elbair v s en uoir s (SER1) is

,tna imod gnitac dni tah sa eht ytivarg fo ,esa rcni se f o

eht

do hilek fo se a rcni noitarec a ni

.ylgnidroc a

redn G f o sekam osla tnad ef d eht a ecn r f id elba zis ni

eht

nois ced noitarec a ni ni owt seti ogacihc( dna .)airoe~ In

htob

site, nemow era less ylekil ebot detar c a ni naht men, a gnid f
tah

s i tne si noc yl aren g osla htiw .hcraes r uoiverp rebmun ehT

fo

nemow ni eht selpmas dna( eht )se revinu is l ams o sa ot

tseg u

noituac ni eht gniterp tni ezis of eht lautc .ecn ref id The
roi p
--

ne wt b pihsnoitaler
--
-- -- --
tnad ef d e h t
-
dna
- -.
mitc v
- --.-
si
.- -I _

signifkant-i-n-t-wo-----

snoitacol ogacihC( dna )dnalkaO er hw eht ecn tsix fo pihsno taler

si
 Table
8.9

Incar e tion: Stepwise Logist cRegr s ion yb Site

SLO^ od s)

Al Case

Chicago Oakl nd Kans City Peoria New Haven

Incar e ation Rate 73% 79% 40% 63% 70%

Case Dis-

posit on (trial) -- -- 2-04" -- --

Ar est d ~t/Near
Crime Scen -- -- -- - 58"" --
Def nda t - *23. *56.
Sta em nts -- -- (IEVZ) -- (IEv2)
Prio

Relationship k -' 5 7 . -."85 -- -- --

Race (~lack) *56. -- -- -- --

Predicted

Proba il ties 84% 69% 79% 75% 79%

Mode 1

Chi Square *ky42. 91 " 63.17 " 78.581 " 72.721

" 80.37

"* Sign ficant ta 1O. (a) = SERl

" Sign ficant ta 50. )b( = SER3

 as ociated with ~incarcerative sent c . T h e d fen a t sta em nt

dichot my whic contras situa ions ni whic def nda ts of er ai b s

with case wher they make no sta em nts (1~~2)

yields conflict ng

result in Kans C i t y and N e w Haven.

Only ni Kans City are d fenda ts convicted ta trial more like y

tobe incar e at d than def ndants convicted yb plea. Known as the

"penalty for g in t o trial this influenchas be n found yb other

res arche s as wel (se, e.g., Bre ton and Casper, 198 ; Uhlman and

Walker, .)9791 It ,si perhaps, most inter sting to note the absence of

such a trial efct in four of the five site in our study. S o m e cau-

tion should be urged h re, howev r, s i n c e the number fo trials si so

.l ams

F o r e n s i c Evidenc

Final y, forensic evid nce (FEV~) ex rts am i n ef ct on the

incar e ation decis on in two site -- Chicago and New Haven. The

influenc fo a labor t y repo t si moderate in Chicago, tub the most

powerful explan tory variable in New Haven. In both site thepr senc

fo a labor t y repo t increas the like ho d of incar e ation

sub tan i l y.

In Chicago, when of ens seriousnes i set ta its median lev the

like ho d of incar e ation si 19 perc ntage points hig er (46% to

)%56
for case with labor t y repo ts than withou . The interaction fo FEVl

and SERl h a s the ef ct of r e d u c i n g rates of incar e ation for convi -

tions withou __
labor t y repo ts, ___
as of ens becom les seriou. --

Qh_T -
- - -

a d i t o n of the labor t y repo t ke ps rates fo i n c a r c e r a t iv oe nr y h i g

225
I
I
 (90%+) ev n as of ense becom les seriou . Only for the most minor

of ense do case with labor t y results not result in a jail or prison

term.

In New Haven, case with laboratory repo ts g e n r a l yh a v e ahigher

like ho d of resulting in aprison sent ce. tA the median seriousnes

lev , the proba il ty fo conviction si twenty percentage points higher

for case w i t h lab reports than for t h o s we i t h o u t them. The FEVlSERl

interaction ex rts a slightly dif er nt ef ct than ti does in Chicago.

In New Haven, ti si case with laboratory reports which ap roximate the

linear trend as case proce d from the lowest to mid-serious range.

tA

the up er case seriousnes lev , virtual y al case with laboratory

reports result in an incar e ation.

In Oakland, the forensic laboratory repo t variable )1VEF(

-ni

teractswith both the tangible vidence )1VET( and seriousnes

)3RES(

vari bles. The pres nce of a laboratory repo t is a s o c i a t e dw i t h

increased rates of incarceration (only 5 percentage points) inthe

absence fo tangible evid nc . TheFEVlSER3 interaction indicates ti is

case with laboratory reports tha fol ow the quadratic t r e n wd h e r

rates fo incarceration increase with ris ng seriousnes , taper of in

the mid-seriousne range, only torise ag in ta t h eu p e r serious

lev. A sim lar FEVlSER3 interaction si pres nt in Peoria.

Ag regated Of ense

We, also, examined the d cis on to incarcerate from an of ense-

specif c standpoint (Table 9.9). As in our jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction

an lysi , prio reco d is thedomina t vari ble. Seriousnes of the

 Table 9.9

Incarceration: Stepwise Logistic Regression

by Offense Type
(Log Odds)

At t Hurd/ Theft/
Murder Agg Batt Rape Robbery Burglary Fraud

Prior Record

Charge Reduction

Case Disposition

Private Attorney

Prior
Relationship

Defendant
Statements

Defendant's Age

Forensic Evidence

Gender

Predicted
Probabilities

Model
Chi Square

"* Significant at .01; * Significant at .05

227
of ense cease to eb a signif cant factor ni this of ense by of ense

an lysi . That is, once we contr l for of ense type, the ag rav tion
fo

the inc dent si not fo consequ nce. Ap arently, then, the nature fo the

of ense si a superior ind cator fo( the decis on to incar e at ) than

factors such as the s verity of injuries su tained yb thevictim of the

crime, ro the pres nce or use fo a weapon.

Charge reduction as umes importance in the sentencing of of enders

convicted of rape, rob ery, burgla y and thef. Having a private de-

fense at orney si as ociated with a reduced likeliho d fo incarceration

for def ndants convicted of rape, rob ery and thef. Mode of case

disposit on si only importan ni the sentencing fo convicted rapist and

burglars, with def ndants convicted ta trial more likely to

eb

incar e at d.

T h e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c ev a r i a b l e (FEv~) ex rts a main ef ct on the

sentencing of persons convicted of at empt murder and rob ery. This

ef ct si compar ble ni magnitude to tha of prio record in the of ense

categories of at empt murder and rob e y. As in the previous jurisdic-

tional an lysi , the ap ear nce of a laboratory repo t leads to sen-

tences fo incar e ation. In at empt murde s, the proba il ty of incar-

ceration increase practical y 30 percentage points with theap ear nce

fo a laboratory repot. The ef ct of the laboratory eport is even

greater in rob eries wher the likeliho d fo incarceration increase

yb

about 53 points.

Our abil ty to explain the sentencing-incarceration decis on is

much superior to the conviction ro charge reduction proces . Eighty-

four-pe c nt of incar e tion-dec sion _w uld-be pr icted correctl~in

Chicago and %97 in Kansa City and New Haven. This si more than 10

 egatnecr p stniop rehgi naht snoitc derp fo noitc vnoc e h tn i

emas

.snoitc dsiruj ehT secn ref id ni detager ga eht

era si ylan esn f o

nev ,reta g ylra ucitrap rof tpme ta sred um . s e p a dr n a sihT

-ni

yrotan lpxe d saerc rewop rof eht nois ced noitarec a ni-g cnet s
si

elbatu irt a ylegral ot eht gnorts ecn ulfni fo eht s'tnad ef d

roi p

.drocer

htaP ledoM rof

noitarec a nI

erugiF 9.7 seziram us eht nois ced noitarec a ni eht guorht

htap

ledom hcaorp debircsed reilrae e s( erugiF 9.6). nI siht

,hcaorp a

noitcuder egrahc si eht ,ne wt b elbair v gni evr tni no eht

,dnah eno

dna yraitnediv lagel-artxe srotcaf and, no eht ,rehto eht

gnic etn s

nois ced sa ot .noitarec a ni ehT htap erutcip detar sul i ni

erugGF

9.7 s i a etisopm c fo eht evif ;seti on sraep htap s elnu eht

-aler

pihsno t ne wt b owt selbair v sruc o ni ta tsael .setis e rht

fO

,esruoc siht si na f otuc yra tibra .tniop er W f otuc eht owt

-if ngis

tnac ,shtap erutcip eht in erugiF 9.7 d l u o w eb

tahwemos detacilpmoc

.reht uf Thre, ,rev woh stne rpe a ytirojam fo ,seti dna

sme

detnar w yb esn nom c dna sde n eht rof

dna noitac filpm s

.ytil bazil ren g lA htap era stneic f eoc nopudesab eht gol
sd o

sthgiew f o srotciderp tnacif ngis yl acits ats

c i t s g o le h t m o r f

nois erg se ylan

.detnes rp

e c n u l f n i g n i m l e h w r v o e h t, n i a g A fo roi p droce si
.detar snomed

strex tI a eht notcef tcerid nois ced noitarec a ni ni la

evif

.seti erom ehtruf -- e_,_ roi p reco d- -tcer-idni-na-skrexe fe ytce thr~ug- - -

,noitcuder egrahc ni e rht fo eht .setis ,suhT eht ecn ulfni

roi p fo
reco d on the incar e ation decis on si ev n great r than tha sug est d

by Table
9.8.

The prio relationship betw n def nda t and vict m andmo e

fo

d i s p o s i t o n ex rt an influenc on the incar e ation decis on ind rectly,

t h r o u g h c arge reduction. Def nda ts who know their vict ms are

t y p i c a l y les like y to be incar e at d, because they are more like y

to obtain a charge r duction whic , i n tur, prom tes a smal er chan e

of incar e ation. In Kans City and Peoria, def nda ts who plea
-rab

gain are more like y to obtain charge reduction ni( Chicago it

si

those def ndants who go to rial) which in turn means they are les

like y to be incar e t d. Only in Kansa C i t y does taking a case to

trial directly af ect the like ho d of rec iv ng a prison sentc. In

only a single jurisdiction (Oaklnd) does forensic evid nce ex rt a main

ef ct on charge reduction, with as ociat ve result leading to c nvi -

tions on the top charge. F o r e n s i c e v i d n c e i n t e r a c t sw i h c r i m e

-s

riousne in sev ral j u r i s d i c t i o n s to influenc charge reduction,

tub

thes are not include ni the diagr m. In the most readily inter-

pretable interaction, the a p e a r n c ef o forensic evid nce tends to

maintain high rates fo convict ons to top charges ni more serious

of ens .

The influence fo the seriousnes fo the crime seta.repo directly on

the decis on to incar e at in al five jurisd ctions. sA was shown in

, T a6 b l .e 9 c r i m e s riousne si a l s o directly as ociated with the

like ho d of charge reduction in two fo t h e five site.

Case with forensic labor t y repo ts (FEV~) are a s o c i a t e d irec-

tly with hig er- at s -fo incare-to in t w o jurisd ctions;

c_i_snerof

evidence also interacts with case seriousnes in its ef ct on incar-

ceration in thes same locatins.

 In sum, the incar e ation decis on si heavily influenced yb the

def nda t's prio record and the seriousnes of the of ens . Mode
fo

disposit on fo the case (plea/tri ) and prio relationship betwe n

def ndant and victim ex rt an ind rect ef ct on incarceration through

the interveni g vari ble, charge reduction. Although forensic evidence,

through an i n t e r a c t i o nw i t h crime seriousnes , ef ects an ef ct on both

charge reduction and incar e ation, its domina t influence si on the

decis on to imprison def n a ts. No other evidentiary factors typical y

influence the decis on whet r to incarcerate he def nda t.

When the incarcerationdecis on si examined for specif c of ense

types, dif er nces emrg. Neither mode of case disposit on nor prio

record ex rts an ef ct on charge reductionwhen control ing for of ense

type. Two new variables em rge, howev r: def ndant sta em nts and

tangible evid nc . tA the point of sentencing,prior record and charge

reduction continue their strong influence and a new vari ble, type of

def nse at orney, becomes sign ficant in thre of ense types.

Length fo Incarceration

The second sentencing question we ad res centers on the length of

incar e ation. fI a convicted def nda t si incarcerated -- whether in

sta e prison or county jail -- for how long? And how do evidentiary

variables, extra-l g factors, and charge reductions influence the

decis on as to length fo time imposed?

As we noted in the introduction to this chapter, the average length

-- -
- - - - p - p p - - p p --

of incarceration varies sharply acros the site. tI si about 6 years

in Chicago, 5 years in Kansa City, 3 2/1 years in New Haven, 2

2/1
 years ni Peoria, and 2 years in Oakl nd. Also, of course, ther
si

fairly sharp variation with n sites il ustra ed yb the standard

deviations (Table )01.9 sa wel as the histograms (~i~ures

9.1 - 9.5).
A prelim nary examination fo the dat finds a substantial as ocia-

tion betwe n charge reductions and length fo incar e tion. In al five

site , def ndants who are convicted fo reduc charges are like y to

serve shorter terms than those convicted fo the most serious charge. We

also found ther to be a strong linear relationship betwe n the se-

riousnes of the of enseand the length fo incarceration in al five

jurisd ctions. tuB what fo the influenc fo evidentiary (including

forensic) and extra-l g factors upon length fo incarceration?

To ad res this question, wenow employ stepwise multiple reg s-

sion an lysi inasmuch as our dep nde t variable si an interval- e

variable (months fo incareto). Since this variable typical yhas

some extrem outliers in each site (e.g., 03 or 05 year terms), a

l o g a r i t h m i c t r a n s f o r m a t i ow na s perfo med on ti prio to the standard

regres ion an lysi . The results fo the regres ion are reported in

Table 9.10

The two most importan variables which ex rt an influenceupon

length fo incarceration ni each site are the seriousnes fo the inc de t

and t h pe r s e n c e / a b s e n c e fo a charge reduction. Prior record also

ex rts a sizeable ef ct in thre fo the five jurisd ctions. The

greater the arm to thevictim, which typical y oc urs in more serious

of ens (murde , rape, etc.), the longer the sent ces. This influence

is particularly strong in Chicago, Oakland andKansa City. Also,

-- -- - -- -
egrahc- re-di ctionsle~d~to
shzrter sentences ofincar e ation; ag in,

this influence si particularly strong i nK a s City. The existence of

 Table 9.10

Length fo Incar e tion: Stepwise Multip e

Regres ion by Site

(~etas)

Al Case

Chicago Oakl nd Kans City Peoria New Haven

Mean Length (months) 70 2 4 5 7 3 1

40

Charge Reduction ." 6 2 2 1 :;' ~t

Seriousnes fo 501""
""'84
Incident (4~~1) (SER~)

Case Dis-

posit on (trial) -- 18";k

Forensic Evidence k;t;71. k~"62

(FEV~) (FEVI)

.26
(FEISR)

Ar ested At/Near

Crime Scence -* 9 0 . - "7t"l

Gender -- - "90

Def nda t Age -" ' 8 0 --

Def ndant

Sta em nts - 14"" -- -- -- --

)a Dep ndent Varible: The log transformation of length fo sentence

(months)

" Signif cant ta .05; "* Sign ficant ta ;10. + Borderline

234
 a prio ar est or conviction has a particular y strong ef ct ni Peoria,

and to a les er degr in Chicago and Oakl nd. tI si surp is ng tha

prio reco d is of no importance ni predict ng sentence length ni Kans

City andNew Haven. tI si inter sting to note tha the relative impor-

tance of prio record and charge reduction si greater for length of

incarceration than for the decis on to incar e t . This is, perhaps,

most readily understandable for charge reductions. Most def ndants --

ev n those who obtain charge reductions -- are sentenced to incar e a-

tion; thus, the predictive value fo charge reduction is smal able

9.6). But shorter terms of incarceration almost nec s arily fol ow from

charge reductions granted to those who ultimately are incar e at d;

thus, its larger impact on length of incar e ation.

The def nda t's prio reco d, yb contras , ex rts an influence in

only thre sites -- Chicago, Oakl nd, an Peoria. Wher as ti was the

domina t influence on the decis on to incarcerate or not, prio record

rec des somewhat in importance for the length fo incar e ation. In

Peoria, prio record remains the most importan factor ta the sentence

length stage; in the other site , ti is eith r of secondary importance

or, supris ngly, no importance at al (~ansas City, New ~aven) . Why its

influence varies so sharply acros the sites in the lengthof incar e a-

tion decis on si not clear.

I Two evidentiary variables make a somewhat supris ng ap ear nce in

Table 9.10 -- whether the def ndant was ar ested at/ne r the crime scen

and forensic evid nce. For both variables, a modest influence upon

I sentence

the scen
length ap ears

of the crime -rsgno-1 evi cer

ni four site .

fo-Seci S-tKeS
Def ndants ar ested

-incar e ation
aw y from

than

I those ar ested at or near the crime scen ; thedirection fo influence

si
 the same acros al four site. Why? No intuit vely logical answer
si

ap rent. We tes d for .t ph oe s i b l t y fo a spurious influenc ,

resulting from the lack of crime types in the regres ion 1.ledom We

hypothesized tha def ndants ar ested aw y from t h ec r i m e scen are much

more likely to eb invol ed in more serious of ense and, ther fore, more

likely to be sentenced to longer terms of incar e ation. Table

1 .9

reports the r sults of this tes for each of the site . In ev ry site,

Ther si some relationship -- often a strong one -- betwe n type of

of ense and wher the def nda t was ar est d. For the most serious

of ense -- murder and rape, relatively few def ndants are ar ested ta

or near the scen , typical y only about .%52 But for les serious

of ense such sa burglary and thef , a much higher percentage of def nd-

ants are ap reh nde at or near the crime scen (40% - .)%06 This

relationship is further examined ni a subsequent sectionwher we con-

trol for crime

.epyt

Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence also makes a dif er nce for length of incarcera-

tion ni f o u r site . In thre fo the four locations FEVl (repo t .sv no

repo t) ex rts a main ef ect on sentence length and ni the fourth

(Peoria) FEV2 (as ociat ve vs . no as ociat ive repo t) is of primary

importance. In two f thes locations, the forensicvariable also

interacts w i t h another indep nde t variable in its influence on length

of sent ce.

- _ - _- -- -
two- tkds-iruj Lon3 w l i e r FEVl actsif;lgularly (Chicago and

New Haven) the pres nce/absence of a laboratory repo t results in a

 Table 3.11

Relationships between Type of Offense

and Location of Arrest, by Site

Percentage of Defendants Arrested

at/near Crime Scene

Offense Chicago Oakland Kansas City Peoria New Haven

Murder 262 25% 24% 33% 25%

Rape 21% 27% 30% 38% 24%

Robbery

Burglary

Theft 55% 63% 45% 45% 36%

Drugs 80% 89% 53% 29% 65%

dif er ntial fo about 03 months in sentence length. This has

ap roximately the same ef ct as a def nda t with a prio ar est reco d

compared with one having a prio conviction reco d. Neith r the fc

fo the forensic evid nce or having a prio r e c o dm a t c h e s tha

fo

increasing the seriousnes of the o f e n s e yb a single lev. Lo king

ta

case ta the median seriousne lev , ti si the absence of a labor t y

repo t which typical y reduc s ent ce length yb about 03 months, while

ni New Haven it si the pres nce fo a labor t y repo t which increas

s e n t e n c e l ngth yb about the same amount.

In Oakl nd, the FEVl main efct si modif ed yb the FEVlSERl

-ni

teraction such tha the ef ct fo no repo tlrepo t is virtual y

neglig ble for f ens of low to moderate seriousne , tub as se-

riousne fo case increas above the mid lev the s e n t e n c e hande

down to def nda ts ni case with lab repo ts rise ta a much great r

rate t h a n f o r t h o s ew i t h o u l a b o r t y repots.

In P e o r i a , both forensic vari bles (FEV1 a n d FEV2) have an influ-

enc on sentence length. The FEV2 dichot my has the ef ct of increas-

ing sentence length wher thed f nda t si linked to thecrime by the

evid nc . tA the median serious lev for case in the Peoria sample,

an as ociative labor t y repo t has the f ect of ad ing an ad it onal

19 months to the sent ce (from 28 to 74 .)shtnom The pres nce of a

laboratory repo t (FEV~) interactswi h the tangible evid nce vari ble

in its ef ct on sent ce length. Her , forensic evid nce has its

domina t ef ct w h e r t a n g i b l e videnc si absent; under such cir um-

stances, the pr senc of a lab repo t has the ef ct fo ad ing about 18

months to s e n t e n c e lngth.

 We can only speculate sa to why forensic evid nc has a great r

direct ef ct on sent cing length than for charge r duction and

incar e ation. One pos ible explan tion might be tah labor t y

result vi dly document the c ar cter and egr fo violenc as ociated

with the crime ,.g.e( tes ing forbld, examin gweapons and firea ms,

etc.), ther by leading t o a des rvedly longer sent ce of incar e tion.

Another relat d explan tion might be tha ti si the most serious and

violent of ens tha aremo like y to gen rate forensic evid nce and

labor t y an lysi , because they are the most seriou (from the

prosecut ' point fo view, ta least, who com nly requ st labor t y

repo ts of col ect d evidnc). When forensic evid nc si compared with

the seriousne fo the of ens , we do find mao d e r a t e cor elation

eht(

hig est being about p x . 1 3 in Chicago and New Haven) tub nothing -pa

proaching col inear ty. Given this moderate relationship, plus incor-

poration fo of ens clas (violent, pro e ty, vict mles ) into the

seriousnes vari ble, we fe l confident in sta ing tha the forensic

evid nce vari ble si not mer ly a "masked of ens vari ble. Whatev r

the pr cise explan tio , ther si a clear a s o c i a t i bo en t w e n forensic

evid nce and length fo incar e ation, while contr l ing for a range
fo
I other vari bles.
I

i Ag re at d Of ens

1 ,eW also, examined factors influenci g length of incar e ation for

particular of ens types ag re at d acros the five jurisd ctions able

I 2). The results-are s i m l a r to eh& prec ding discu ion wher al

I
o f e n s e types w re combined with n jurisd ctions. We f i n d charge reduc-

 elbaT
21.9

htgnei fo :noitarec a nI esiwpetS elpituM

nois erg R
by esn f O
epyT

)sateB(

tA t /druM /tfehT
red uM gA t aB Rape yreb oR yralg uB duarF
naeM htgnL (mnths) 29 38 601 3 7 28 17
SD (280) (67) )01 ( )98( (29) (17)

Prio
droceR

egrahC Reduction

Case
noit s p D

Prio

pihsno taleR

Def
tnem a S

ecn divE elbignaT

cisneroF Evidenc

raenit de s r A
Scen
Crim

kcalB

** tnacifgS ta 1O. enilr d oB+

* tnacif g S ta .05
240

 tion to be the most influential variable for the of ens of murde ,

rape and rob e y. Prior ecord b e c o m s t h ed o m i n a t pred-icto for

burgla y and thef. We find, to, tha case disposit on and prio

relationship each as umes signif cance in thre fo the six of ense

categories, influenci g length fo sentence ni the exp cted direct on.

Being ar ested aw y from the scen of the crime increas sentence

length in the of ense categories of at empt murde /ag r vated bat ery,

rob ery, burglary and thef . This serv s to rej ct the hypothesi

of er d in the previous section, tha the proxim ty fo ar est variable

si simply a sur ogatem asure for of ense type. tI si pos ible tha

being ar ested away from the scen of the crime serves to indicate the

def ndant to k flight and is consequently guilty of the crime.

One or the other fo the two forensic dichot mies ex rts am in

ef ect on sentence length in four of the six of ense categori s. FEVl

influences sentence length ni the of ens fo at empt murde , rob ery

and thef. In ev ry instance the ad it on of a labor t y repo t leads

ot longer sent ces. Holding other indep nde t vari bles at their

median values, the lab report ad s about 32 months to a temp murder

sentences, 72 months to rob ery terms and 4 months to thef sent c .

For rapes, the FEV2 v a r i a b l e ex rts an ef ct quite dif er nt than

for other of ense categories. Her , the crit cal find g ap ears to be

an identif cation fo( sem n) rather than the finding of as ociative

evid nc . Such an identif cation (contr l ing for other vari bles) ad s

ap roximately 26 months to prison terms fo convicted rapist.

In rob ery and thef , the FEV2 term also interacts with def nda t

sta em nts in its-ef ct on lengt

the f ect of FEVl in thes same crime categories, a laboratory repo t

a s o c i a t i n g a def n a t with a crime ad s an ad it onal 85 months ot a

r o b e r y s e n t e n c ea n d 7 months ot a thef sentence - practi al y twice

the ef ct fo the FEVl term.

Our abil ty to explain the decis on about sentence length si quite

substantial, as measured yb the R2 figures in both the site specif and

po led of ens an lyse . I n the site by site an lysi , the range

si

from 46% fo the v a r i a t i o n explained in Kans City to 13% in N e w Haven;

both Peoria and Chicago ap roach the Kans yti figure %03( in Peoria

and 36% in .)ogacihC Thes figures ug est tha thevari bles discu ed

do play a central role in decis on about length fo incar e tion.

Path Model for Length of Incar e ation

Final y, Figure 9.8 s u m a r i z e s t h ep a m o d e l for the length of

i n c a r c e r a t i o n decis on. tI sug est tha many of the influenc s upon

sentence length a r e direct, and s i m l a r to those found for the decis on

to incarcerate (Table 9.8). More gen ral y, the influenc s ac ounting

for the two s t a g e s fo sent cing decis on are both sim lar and dif-

fer nt. A number of vari bles -- pres nce/absenc of a charge reduc-

tion, s e r i o u s n e s of the inc de t, a n d ef nda t prio reco d -- influ-

enc both decis on , albeit in somewhat dif ering magnitudes. Forensic

evidence only has a direct ef ct in thre or more locations when length

of incarceration si the dep nde t vari ble. Stil , ther si suf ic ent

overlap betwe n the two set fo predictor vari bles to s a y tha the

decis onal proces for incar e ation and length of incarceration are

roughly sim lar tub not ident cal.

 Figure 9.8

Composite P a t h Model: Length of I n c a r c e r a t i o n *

EDOM
RELATIONSHP
P R IEOC D

PRIO

CASE
FO
DISPO T N

- CHARGE DUTION - SENTC

(length)

SERIOUN FO INC DE T I
FORENSIC VD

* Only r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h r e e o r more s i t e s shown.

Convict on, C h a r g eR d u c t i o n , Sent ci g:

Sum ary a n d Synthesi

nI thes past t w o chapters focusing upon conviction and charge

reduction/2e t nci g, we have pres nted a large body of dat , an lysi ,

and interp a ion. Briefly, below, we at empt to s y n t h e s i z e our result

into a gen ral port ai of adjudication and sentencing ta the felony

lev.

The most sign ficant pat ern tha em rges from our an lysi of

convict on, charge duction a d sentencing si the shift in clas e of

vari bles tha influenc thes decis on stage . With resp ct to the

d e c i s o nw h e t h e r to convict, e v i d e n t i a r yv a r i a b l e s tha speak to the

def n a t's factu l guilt ro in ocen a s u m e prime importance. Did the

def nda t admit his guilt ro incr minate himself? Does t a n g i b l e

-iv

denc link the def n a t with t h e c r i m e or crime scen ? The one prime

v a r i a b l e not fit ng this explan tion si the age factor, wher younger

def nda ts h a v e a great r like ho d of being convi ted.

With resp ct to the d e c i s o nw h e t h e r to r e d u c e charges, t h e s types

of evid ntiary vari bles rec de into he background. They are replaced

by variables tha speak to the char cter or ag rav tion of the inc de t.

Was the victim harmed? Was ther any prio relationship betwe n the

def nda t and vict m? A d i t o n a l y , s y t e m proces ing char cteristics

becom importan -- si t h e c a s e d i s p o s e d yb plea or ta trial? Final y,

def nda t background char cterist c (us al y ref r ed to as "extra-

)"lage also as ume great r importance. Does the def nda t have a prio

reco d of ar ests?_-of conviction? How old si the def ndant? sI he

ro

she black or white?

 With resp ct to the decis on about incar e ation and length of

incar e ation, sy tem proces ing and def nda t background

char cterist c becom ev n more importan . Was a charge reduction

obtained? Was the case dispo ed of via a plea ro trial? What si the

def nda t's prio reco d? or gend r? Among the videntiary vari bles,

only seriousne fo the inc de t (and for length fo sent ce, forensic

evid nce and locati n of arest) si u n i f o r m i l y brought into the d cis on

about sent ce. Table 31.9 sum arizes thes pat erns.

nI sum, forensic evid nce plays a rathe lim ted role in the deci-

sion to c nvi t -- when compared with the f ects of dep nde t sta e-

ments, tangible evid nce and the age of the defnat. While other

evid ntiary vari bles gen ral y dim nish ni importance ta t h e charge

r e d u c t i o n stage, forensic evid nc , princ pal y via interactions with

the seriousnes fo the crime, ex rts a sub tan i l ef ct in sup orting

convict ons on the top charge. tA the point of sent cing, t h e influ-

enc of forensic evid nce as umes its great s strength, em rgin as a

sign ficant vari ble i n four of the five jurisd ct on . tI si length of

sentence in particular wher forensic evid nce ex rts a sub tan i l main
ef ct in al jurisd ctions exc pt for one, fre from the interactive

lim ta ions which char cterize its ef cts on al prec ding judic al

decis on .

 Table
9.13

Sum ary of Influenc s upon Convict on,

Charge Reduction and Sent ci g

Number fo Sites ni whic Vari ble si As ociated with ....

Charge Sent cing

Convict on Reduction In-Out Length

Nature fo Evidenc

Forensic Evidenc
Y'r

T a n g i b l e Evidenc
*:'r*

Def Sta em nts

*:9***

# of Eyewitnes >'r

Ar ested At/Near

Crime Scen
9r ~t

Seriousnes

of Incident
**
Prior Relationship
t Yr'

System Proces ing Char cteristics

Charge Reduction A
N

Mode of

Disposit on A
N

Type of

Def nse At orney

Def nda t Background

Prior Record
Y'C

Gender

Race

Based upon multivariate an lyse ; Tables 8.3, 9.6, 9.8, and

9.10
246
 Chapter X

PROSECUTORS' ASSESSMENT OF E V I D E N C E I N HYPOTHETICAL CASES

Method of Approach

The respondents included a l l 165 p r o s e c u t i n g attorneys i n t h e feloCp-

t r i a l d i v i s i o n of t h e S t a t e A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e i n Chicago who were asked t o

complete a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 65% of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e t u r n e d

(118). Two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e analyses

b e c a u s e more t h a n o n e c h o i c e was s e l e c t e d a t s e v e r a l d e c i s i o n p o i n t s .

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were developed c o n s i s t i n g of b r i e f , one page

I d e s c r i p t i o n s of f o u r c r i m e s : a r a p e , a r o b b e r y , a n a t t e m p t e d murder
iI and a b u r g l a r y . 1 The c a s e s v a r i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o : 1 ) presence/absence
1

of a n e y e w i t n e s s who c o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e d e f e n d a n t a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l

responsible for the offense, 2) strength of a s s o c i a t i o n between

I d e f e n d a n t and c r i m e due t o t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e e i t h e r found on t h e

d e f e n d a n t o r l e f t by t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e s c e n e o f the crime

(strong/weak), 3) p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e of a n o r a l c o n f e s s i o n by t h e

d e f e n d a n t and 4 ) s t r e n g t h o f f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e (5 l e v e l s ) . The

f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e was v a r i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o two d i m e n s i o n s : how

strongly i t associated a s p e c i f i c d e f e n d a n t with the crime

( s t r o n g / w e a k ) and i t s l o c a t i o n ( d i s t a n t f r o m t h e o f f e n s e a n d p o s s i b l y ,

1 ined awa-y, o r so situaeed t h

e x p l a n a t i o n o t h e r than t h e i n v o l v e m e n t of t h e defendant could account

for it). T h e f i f t h l e v e l o f f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e was a c o n d i t i o n i n

i
247
 erugiF 10.1

snoita r v dna elbignaT n i cisneroF

ecnedivE

: e p y Te s a C

--
R a ~ e -

elbignaT
:ecnedivE

t f e lt k c a j - g n o r t S ta en cs fo ,emirc s'tnadnef d size,

s'tnadnef d nwes mankcin on

ti
kaeW ta tfel tekcaj- en cs fo ,emirc s'tnadnef d
ezis

cisneroF
:ecnedivE

-tnad efd Dtaicos A
:ylgnortS nem s tne si noc htiw s'tnad ef d do lb epyt
:ylkaeW nem s is elbaif tnedi on( noitamrofni on do lb
gnipuorg

-noitacoL
:tna siD on lewot in mo rhtab
:esolC ni mitc v

----
Robbex

elbignaT
:ecnedivE
n i a h cd l o g - n o r t S fo epyt nrow by mitc v dna htiw
s'mitciv
etadh rib debircsni on kcab dnuof on
tnad ef d
Weak dlog- niahc fo epyt nrow by dnuof mitc v on
tnad ef d

cisneroF
:ecnedivE

- t n a d e f dDe t a i c o s A
:ylgnortS namuh do lb no efink tne si noc htiw
s'mitciv
do lb
epyt
ylkaeW : do lb on efink sa elbaif tnedi namuh do lb on(
no noitamrofni do lb
)gnipuorg
o L
-noi tac
:tnatsiD efink dnuof in
y e l a
&lose: _ kni& found in t-na-dnefed
 snoita r V in elbignaT dna Forensic
ecn divE

Case :epyT

At empted Murder

Tangible
:ecn divE

:gnortS cap of ezis worn yb defnat, with s'tnad ef d

slait n
in found it ta scen fo crime

:kaeW pac fo worn size yb found eat at scen fo crime

Forensic
:ecn divE

detaicos A Defndat-

:ylgnortS tel ub removd from to

shwn victmoluey
evah fromiedbn a weapon
scifd
ylkaeW : tel ub beingwth victmonse fr emovd
derif from a specifd weapon

tacoL
-noi
Distan: gunfod in
e s m ' o t h n a d f ie b y l a
:esolC nug found in s'tnad ef d bedrom

L~ZJ~L~LY

:ecn divE elbignaT

:gnortS watch Rolex with s'mitc v intals dnuof defnat

o
:kaeW watch Rolex eht( alegdy stolen d n u )o mf e t i on

defnat

Forensic
:ecn divE

detaicos A Defndat-

:ylgnortS defnat mchig fingerpts found

:ylkaeW kramlo t consitefud with found tl in

-noitac L
:tna siD found evic on windosl fo windo desu for

yrtne
Close: found evic on jewlry ansckd box
which no f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e was f o u n d . F i g u r e 10.1 p r e s e n t s

t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n t a n g i b l e and f o r e n s i c evidence.

A s can been s e e n i n F i g u r e 1 0 . 2 , w h i c h p r e s e n t s t h e d e s i g n of t h e

s t u d y , t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e f o u r t y p e s of e v i d e n c e r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l

of 4 0 d i f f e r e n t s t o r i e s . 2

F i g u r e 10.2

D e s i g n of t h e S t u d y

Eyewitness I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
Yes No

T a n g i b l e Evidence
Strong Weak Strong Weak

Confession
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
F o r e n s i c Evidence

Close Location:
A s s o c i a t e d Defendant
Strongly - x x x x x x X X
Weakly x x x x x x x x

Distant Location:
A s s o c i a t e d Defendant
Strongly x x x x x x x x
Weakly x x x x x x x x

Absent x x x x x x x x

The p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e c a s e s was v a r i e d s u c h t h a t f o r any

prosecutor, t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e , f o r e n s i c evidence

and e y e w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n were h e l d c o n s t a n t a c r o s s a l l c a s e s read.

P r o s e c u t o r s w e r e a s k e d t o a s s u m e t h a t c e r t a i n o t h e r f a c t s associated

with the cases t h a t might have i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r case processing

d e c i s i o n s , were c o n s t a n t a c r o s s a l l t h e c a s e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e y w e r e
a s k e d t o assume:

o t h e d e f e n d a n t was m a l e ,

o t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d v i c t i m w e r e of t h e same r a c e ,

o t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d v i c t i m w e r e unknown t o e a c h o t h e r p r i o r t o

the offense,

o the defendant had one p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n f o r a property

offense,

o t h e d e f e n d a n t had no o t h e r c h a r g e s p e n d i n g a g a i n s t him,

o t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by a p u b l i c d e f e n d e r w i t h no

particular reputation f o r seeking o r avoiding t r i a l s ,

o and t h e judge r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e c a s e had no b i a s e s w i t h

respect t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r offense being considered.

F o r e a c h crime, p r o s e c u t o r s w e r e i n i t i a l l y a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e

most l i k e l y p a t h of d i s p o s i t i o n f o r t h e c a s e g i v e n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t

had o r a l l y c o n f e s s e d t o t h e c r i m e , though refused t o s i g n a statement.

P r o s e c u t o r s were t h e n a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e most l i k e l y p a t t e r n o f c a s e

d i s p o s i t i o n g i v e n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d d e n i e d c o m m i t t i n g t h e crime.

T h u s , e a c h p r o s e c u t o r i n d i c a t e d w h a t h e / s h e b e l i e v e d t o b e t h e most

l i k e l y p a t t e r n of c a s e d i s p o s i t i o n f o r e i g h t c a s e s . C o n f e s s i o n by t h e

defendant is manipulated w i t h i n subjects, while eyewitness

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e a n d f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e v a r y between

subjects.

T h e p a t h o f c a s e d i s p o s i t i o n w a s a s s e s s e d by a s k i n g p r o s e c u t o r s

about :

1) c h a r g i n g - - w h e t h e r a c h a r g e o f r a p e , r o b b e r y , a t t e m p t e d murder

o r b u r g l a r y ( a s a p p r o p r i a t e ) w o u l d b e a p p r o v e d , a l e s s e r c h a r g e would

be a p p r o v e d o r n o c h a r g e w o u l d be a p p r o v e d 3
 2 ) t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g - - w h e t h e r t h e c a s e would be bound o v e r

or dismissed

3) plea negotiations--if the c a s e w e r e r e s o l v e d by p l e a

negotiati'ons, whether t h e c a s e would b e p l e d t o t h e i n i t i a l l y approved

charge, o r a l e s s e r charge

4) trial--if t h e c a s e w e r e r e s o l v e d by t r i a l , w h e t h e r t h e

defendant would be c o n v i c t e d o r a c q u i t t e d a t a bench t r i a l o r j u r y

trial

5 ) t y p e of s e n t e n c e - - i f t h e d e f e n d a n t were sentenced, whether it

would b e t o p r i s o n , j a i l o r p r o b a t i o n

6) l e n g t h o f p r i s o n s e n t e n c e - - i f t h e d e f e n d a n t were s e n t e n c e d t o

p r i s o n , how many y e a r s t h a t s e n t e n c e would b e .

F i n a l l y , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n q u i r e d a b o u t t h e number o f y e a r s e a c h

respondent had been i n t h e f e l o n y t r i a l d i v i s i o n of the state

a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e , a n d t h e number o f j u r y t r i a l s t a k e n .

Overview

The r e s u l t s w e r e a n a l y s e d w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f a r e p e a t e d -

m e a s u r e s a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e . T h e s t u d y c o n s i s t e d of a 2 ( s t r e n g t h

of t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e i n a s s o c i a t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e o f f e n s e :

weak, s t r o n g ) x 2 ( e y e w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n : y e s , n o ) x 5 ( s t r e n g t h o f

, two-level,

confession). The v a r i a b l e , s t r e n g t h of f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e , was composed

s o a s t o vary w i t h i n i t s e l f t h e c e r t a i n t y w i t h which t h e f o r e n s i c
evidence a s s o c i a t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e c r i m e and t h e l o c a t i o n i n

which t h e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e was f o u n d . F i v e l e v e l s of t h i s f a c t o r w e r e

c r e a t e d by c r o s s i n g t w o l e v e l s o f e a c h of t h e s e two f a c t o r s a n d

i n c l u d i n g a c a s e v a r i a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e r e was n o f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e .

For t h e v a r i a b l e of f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e , o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s were

established t o t e s t for: 1) t h e e f f e c t of s t r e n g t h of association

between t h e de'fendant and t h e o f f e n s e c r e a t e d by t h e f o r e n s i c

evidence, 2 ) t h e e f f e c t o f l o c a t i o n i n w h i c h f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e was
I
found, 3) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f s t r e n g t h o f a s s o c i a t i o n and l o c a t i o n and !

4 ) t h e e f f e c t of h a v i n g a n y , v s . no f o r e n s i c evidence. Following

p r o c e d u r e s recommended by M c C a l l h A p p e l b a u m ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a g r a n d mean a n d

difference score were constructed f o r each subject for the

within-subjects factor. T h e r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s a n a l y s i s was a c h i e v e d

by c o n d u c t i n g t h e b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e on t h e s e

scores. Two v a r i a b l e s w e r e u s e d a s c o v a r i a t e s i n t h i s a n a l y s i s :

number of y e a r s i n t h e f e l o n y t r i a l d i v i s i o n o f t h e s t a t e a t t o r n e y ' s

o f f i c e a n d number of j u r y t r i a l s e x p e r i e n c e d . B e c a u s e c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s

a r e unequal, a l l reported tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e a r e "eliminating"

t e s t s ( c , f . Appelbaum 6 Cramer, 1 9 7 4 ) .

Kesults r e v e a l i n g t h e types of evidence which i n f l u e n c e d the

decisionmaking of p r o s e c u t o r s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r e a c h of t h e d e p e n d e n t

measures f o r each of t h e f o u r i n v e s t i g a t e d crimes. The d e p e n d e n t

measures were p r o s e c u t o r s ' r e s p o n s e s a b o u t how t h e c a s e would f a r e a t

e a c h d e c i s i o n p o i n t , and s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l dichotomous measures

--
c r e a t e d from t h e p r o s e c u t o r s ' response I d tKe c a s e be-

r e s o l v e d by p l e a o r t r i a l ; i f a t r i a l , w o u l d t h e d e f e n d a n t b e f o u n d

innocent o r g u i l t y ; r e g a r d l e s s of method of d i s p o s i t i o n , would t h e

d e f e n d a n t be l i k e l y t o be judged i n n o c e n t o r g u i l t y ) .

It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t d u e t o t h e d e s i g n o f t h e s t u d y , a n a l y s e s

c o u l d h a v e r e v e a l e d main e f f e c t s a n d up t o f i v e - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s of t h e

various types of e v i d e n c e . We c o n d u c t e d t h e a n a l y s e s s o a s t o l o o k

f o r a l l possible interactions. We f o u n d n o five-way i n t e r a c t i o n s , but

we d i d d i s c o v e r f o u r , f o u r - w a y interactions. B e c a u s e of t h e s m a l l

number o f f o u r - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s , and b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t r e a d i l y

i n t e r p r e t a b l e , we a r e i n c l i n e d t o r e g a r d t h e s e a s s p u r i o u s r e s u l t s . We

have t h e r e f o r e n o t p r e s e n t e d t h i s d a t a i n t h i s r e p o r t ,

The C h a r g i n g D e c i s i o n

P r o s e c u t o r s f i r s t i n d i c a t e d w h e t h e r t h e y t h o u g h t t h e f a c t s of t h e

c a s e would s u p p o r t t h e f i l i n g o f c h a r g e s o f r a p e , r o b b e r y , a t t e m p t e d

murder o r b u r g l a r y ( a s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e c a s e ) , o r t h e f i l i n g of a

l e s s e r c h a r g e , o r t h e f i l i n g o f n o c h a r g e a t a l l . R e s p o n s e s w e r e coded

as: ( 1 ) n o c h a r g e s a p p r o v e d , ( 2 ) l e s s e r c h a r g e a p p r o v e d and ( 3 ) f u l l

charge approved. P e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s c h o o s i n g e a c h of t h e s e

responses f o r e a c h of t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l c a s e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Table

10.1. As can be s e e n i n Table 10.1, f o r two o f t h e c r i m e s - - r o b b e r y and

burglary--very few r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n
,
f i l i n g t h e c a s e a s a r o b b e r y o r b u r g l a r y would o c c u r . With s u c h a n

u n e v e n d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s e s , s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s o f t h e i m p a c t of
I
eyewitness identification, forensic o r tangible evidence or a
i
i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t w e r e e i t h e r i m p o s s i b l e , o r m e a n i n g l e s s f

t h e s e two crimes.4
 T a b l e 10.1

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n of C a s e C h a r g i n g D e c i s i o n s

% F u l l Charge % L e s s e r Charge % No C h a r g e
Approved Approved Approved

Rape 83% 2% 15%

A t tempted
Murder 70%

Robbery 96% 2% 2%

Burglary 96%

Rape C a s e Whether t h e c a s e would be f i l e d a s a rape is

a f f e c t e d by a two-way and a three-way i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e t y p e s of

evidence. The two-way i n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l v e s t h e s t r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n

b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e o f f e n s e c r e a t e d by t h e t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e

a n d a n a l y s i s of t h e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e (~(1,91)=4.37,p<.039). It

appears t h a t f o r e n s i c evidence l i n k i n g t h e defendant with t h e rape has

n o i n f l u e n c e on c h a r g i n g d e c i s i o n s when t h e t a n g i b l e evidence s t r o n g l y

a s s o c i a t e s t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h commission of t h e o f f e n s e ( a j a c k e t found

a t t h e scene has t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s nickname sewn o n i t ) ( p > . l ) . However,

when t h e t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e m o r e w e a k l y l i n k s t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e

c r i m e ( t h e j a c k e t i s m e r e l y t h e s i z e t h a t would f i t t h e d e f e n d a n t ) , t h e

s t r e n g t h of t h e f o r e n s i c a s s o c i a t i o n h a s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t

e f f e c t on c h a r g i n g ( F ( 1 , 9 1 ) = 3 . 9 5 , p < . 0 5 ) . I f ' t h e semen i s m e r e l y

defendant, prosecutors a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o f i l e the case as a rape

{.adjusted c e l l meansastrong t a n g i b l e evidence & strong

255

 association-2.72, s t r o n g t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e & weak a s s o c i a t i o n - 2 . 8 0 ,

weak t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e & s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n - 2 . 7 2 ; weak t a n g i b l e

e v i d e n c e & weak a s s o c i a t i o n - 2 . 4 8 ) . 5 That i s , i f one considers the

a d j u s t e d c e l l means, i t a p p e a r s t h a t when b o t h e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t o r s a r e

weak, t h e c e l l mean i s much l o w e r ( i n f a c t , s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n f i c a n t l y

.' l o w e r ) and t h e c a s e i s more l i k e l y t o b e d i s m i s s e d o r f i l e d a s a

lesser offense.

The c h a r g i n g d e c i s i o n i s also i n f l u e n c e d by a t h r e e - w a y

interaction of: t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e , e y e w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a

c o n f e s s i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t ( F ( 1 , 9 1 ) = 5 . 8 2 , p < . 0 1 8 ) . Adjusted c e l l

means a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s t h r e e - w a y interaction a r e presented i n

Table 10.2. Examination of those means would suggest an

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n such as: t h e p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e of a c o n f e s s i o n h a s i t s

g r e a t e s t impact, t h a t i s , most a f f e c t s t h e numerical value a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h a c e l l m e a n , when b o t h t h e t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e w e a k l y i d e n t i f i e s

t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e v i c t i m c a n n o t i d e n t i f y t h e r a p i s t . 6 In the

a b s e n c e of t h e s e two o t h e r k i n d s o f e v i d e n c e , t h e l a c k o f a c o n f e s s i o n

s e v e r e l y reduces t h e chances t h a t t h e c a s e w i l l be f i l e d as a rape.

 T a b l e 10.2

A d j u s t e d C e l l Means f o r C h a r g i n g D e c i s i o n :
I n t e r a c t i o n of T a n g i b l e E v i d e n c e , I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,
and C o n f e s s i o n f o r Rape C a s e

Tangible Evidence
Strong Weak

Eyewitness I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
Yes No Yes No

Confession

Yes
N0

Codes: l = n o c h a r g e a p p r o v e d , 2 = l e s s e r c h a r g e a p p r o v e d , 3 = f u l l
charge approved

Attempted Murder C a s e W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a t t e m p t e d murder

c a s e , d i f f e r e n c e s i n c h a r g i n g d e c i s i o n s a p p e a r t o b e i n f l u e n c e d by o n e ,

three-way interaction. The three-way i n t e r a c t i o n involves

p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e of f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e , e y e w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d a

confession (F(1,91)=7.23,~<.08). The t h r e e - w a y interaction is similar

t o t h a t n o t e d i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h a r g i n g

decisions i n the rape case. A l t h o u g h o n e o f t h e t h r e e t y p e s of

e v i d e n c e d i f f e r s f r o m t h e r a p e c a s e ( t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e h a s been

r e p l a c e d by f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e ) , p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e of a c o n f e s s i o n

a p p e a r s t o h a v e i t s g r e a t e s t e f f e c t when t h e r e i s n o f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e

and no e y e w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e defendant. Absence of a

c o n f e s s i o n r e d u c e s t h e l i k e l i h o o d of a c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d murder.

A d j u s t e d c e l l means a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n

T a b l e 10.3. 257
 T a b l e 10.3

A d j u s t e d C e l l Means f o r C h a r g i n g D e c i s i o n :
I n t e r a c t i o n of A v a i l a b i l i t y of F o r e n s i c E v i d e n c e ,
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and C o n f e s s i o n f o r A t t e m p t e d Murder

F o r e n s i c Evidence
Yes No

Eyewitness I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
Yes No Yes No

Confession

Yes
No

Codes: 1-no c h a r g e a p p r o v e d , 2 = l e s s e r c h a r g e a p p r o v e d , 3 = f u l l
charge approved

Discussion Two m a j o r c o n c l u s i o n s s e e m t o e m e r g e f r o m t h e s e

a n a l y s e s of t h e c h a r g i n g d e c i s i o n . F i r s t , forensic evidence seems t o

have a f f e c t e d prosecutorial decisions o n l y when i t was absent.

For both the r a p e and t h e attempted murder c a s e s , i t i s i n the

a b s e n c e of b o t h f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e a n d some o t h e r t y p e ( s ) of evidence

t h a t the prosecutor i s less w i l l i n g t o f i l e charges o r t o f i l e the

c a s e a s a r a p e o r a t t e m p t e d murder.

A s would b e e x p e c t e d , t h e p r o s e c u t o r i s most l i k e l y t o be

i n f l u e n c e d by f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e i n m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s a b o u t t h e r a p e

case when body f l u i d s have b e e n a n a l y s e d t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t

blood group type. raction involving the

s t r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t a n d o f f e n s e r e s u l t i n g f r o m

a n a l y s i s of f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e . ) S u c h a n a n a l y s i s would p r o b a b l y n o t

be a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e t i m e t h a t t h e c h a r g i n g d e c i s i o n would have t o
258

be made, b u t i f t h e p r o s e c u t o r i s a w a r e t h a t t h e e x a m i n a t i o n r e v e a l e d

semen b u t d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a l i n k b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s and

s a m p l e ' s blood g r o u p s , p r o s e c u t o r s i n d i c a t e t h a t i f t h e r e i s a l s o a n

a b s e n c e of t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e w h i c h s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e s t h e d e f e n d a n t

w i t h t h e crime, t h a t they a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o charge.

A second major f i n d i n g i s t h a t s t r e n g t h of t a n g i b l e evidence

a p p e a r s t o have b e e n a n i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e r a p e

c a s e ( i t was i n v o l v e d i n o n e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c o n f e s s i o n and

eyewitness i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a n o t h e r w i t h l o c a t i o n of the f o r e n s i c

evidence) but not t h e a t t e m p t e d murder. Prosecutors apparently f e e l

t h a t t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e i s a k e y c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e c i d i n g on a c h a r g e

f o r a rape case. T h i s may b e b e c a u s e e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y ( f r o m t h e

victim) i s regarded a s l e s s v a l i d f o r a rape than eyewitness testimony

(from a b y s t a n d e r ) f o r a n a t t e m p t e d murder, I t may a l s o r e f l e c t a

b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e n a t u r e of t h e r e s u l t s o f a n y a n a l y s i s of t h e

f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r a p e a n d a t t e m p t e d murder c a s e s .

A n a l y s i s o f s e m e n c a n a t b e s t i n d i c a t e t h a t i t i s 0.f a b l o o d g r o u p

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t of t h e d e f e n d a n t . It w i l l not unequivocally

i d e n t i f y t h e defendant a s t h e r a p i s t . B a l l i s t i c s a n a l y s i s , however, a t

b e s t can e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h i s i s t h e gun t h a t f i r e d t h e s h o t i n t o t h e

victim. Because f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e would be l e s s c o n c l u s i v e f o r t h e

r a p e c a s e , t h e n e e d f o r t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e c h a r g i n g may have

been g r e a t e r . O r i t may b e a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e t y p e o f t a n g i b l e

e v i d e n c e m a n i p u l a t e d i n t h e two h y p o t h e t i c a l c a s e s . I n the rape, a

j a c k e t was l e f t a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e crime; i n t h e a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r , a

c a p was l e f t . A j a c k e t may b e p e r c e i v e d a s m o r e p o w e r f u l t a n g i b l e

e v i d e n c e t h a n a c a p , a n d t h e r e f o r e , r e c e i v e more c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e

259-

charging decision.

Preliminarv Hearing

F o r a l l f o u r c a s e s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e l e v e l a n d c o m b i n a t i o n of

p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t a n g i b l e a n d f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e and o c c u r r e n c e

of d e f e n d a n t c o n f e s s i o n , s u c h a h i g h p e r c e n t a g e of t h e r e s p o n s e s

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c a s e would be bound o v e r , t h a t a n a l y s e s , even i f

s t a t i s t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e , would h a v e b e e n m e a n i n g l e s s . This i s revealed

c l e a r l y i n T a b l e 10.4.

T a b l e 10.4

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mode of C a s e D i s p o s i t i o n
a t Preliminary Hearing

% Bound Over X Dismissed

Rape 6%

A t tempted
Murder

Robbery

Burglary

I t may seem s u r p r i s i n g t h a t s o l i t t l e a t t r i t i o n was e x p e c t e d a t

t h i s s t a g e of c a s e p r o c e s s i n g . C e r t a i n l y , t h e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e

c r i m i n a l c o u r t s h a s c o n c l u d e d t h a t many c a s e s f a i l t o s u r v i v e t h e

p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g . It m i g h t b e t h a t t h e t y p e s o f c a s e s w e p r e s e n t

t o p r o s e c u t o r s were n o t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e o f t h e c a s e s n o r m a l l y I

i
r e c e i v e d ( b e i n g more s e r i o u s o f f e n s e s ) a n d t h e r e f o r e would n o t r e f l e c t

t h e normal s c r e e n i n g of c a s e s a t t h i s d i s p o s i t i o n p o i n t .
2 60
However,
i
IL

statistics about d i s m i s s a l r a t e s at t h e preliminary hearing for

robberies i n t h i s jurisdiction a r e available. They r e v e a l a d i s m i s s a l

rate consistent with our data. Only a b o u t 3% o f c a s e s a r e dismissed

a t the preliminary hearing i n Chicago ( C h i c a g o C r i m e Commission,

1983).

Method o f D i s p o s i t i o n : PleaITrial

T h i s v a r i a b l e was c r e a t e d b y d i c h o t o m i z i n g r e s p o n s e s t o t h e

q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e c a s e would be p l e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l charge,

pled t o a l e s s e r charge o r r e s o l v e d a t t r i a l . I f a response indicated

t h a t a c a s e would b e p l e d ( r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c h a r g e ) i t was c o d e d as a
)
1. Cases t h a t w e r e e x p e c t e d t o g o t o t r i a l w e r e c o d e d a s a 2. The

p e r c e n t a g e of each of t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l c a s e s e x p e c t e d t o be r e s o l v e d

by g u i l t y p l e a a n d t r i a l i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 10.5.

T a b l e 10.5

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P l e a / T r i a l Mode o f D i s p o s i t i o n

X Pleas % Trials

Rape 78%

A t tempted
Murder

Robbery

Burglary 64%

B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the impact o f t y p e s o f e v i d e n c e o n mode o f

d i s p o s i t i o n , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t the p l e a l t r i a l decision is

162
l a r g e l y c o n t r o l l e d by t h e d e f e n s e . It i s the defendant's choice

whether t o e n t e r a p l e a o r t o go t o t r i a l . Although the prosecution

may o f f e r c h a r g e o r s e n t e n c e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n e x c h a n g e f o r a p l e a ,

the defense w i l l decide whether o r n o t t o accept. Thus, i n these

responses, prosecutors a r e i n d i c a t i n g what t h e y t h i n k defendants w i l l

choose t o do. The d a t a d o n o t r e f l e c t how p r o s e c u t o r s would l i k e t o

d i s p o s e of a c a s e , b u t w h a t t h e y e x p e c t w i l l happen. Both v e r y

s t r o n g a n d v e r y weak c a s e s may b e e x p e c t e d t o g o t o t r i a l : t h e f o r m e r

because t h e defense r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o be l o s t ( t h e

p r o s e c u t o r w i l l o f f e r no b a r g a i n f o r p l e a s i n t h e s e c a s e s ) , the

l a t t e r because the d e f e n s e h o n e s t l y b e l i e v e s t h e r e t o be a h i g h

probability of a c q u i t t a l . In addition, i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t t h e

e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t a c a s e w i l l b e r e s o l v e d t h r o u g h e n t r y of a p l e a i s

n o t an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e case w i l l be p l e a bargained. Whether a

g u i l t y p l e a w i l l b e m o t i v a t e d by a n o f f e r f r o m t h e p r o s e c u t o r c a n n o t

be i n f e r r e d from p a t t e r n s i n t h e d a t a .

Rape Case L i k e l i h o o d o f r e s o l v i n g t h e r a p e c a s e by p l e a o r

t r i a l was a f f e c t e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f s t r e n g t h of t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e ,

t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e a n d a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a c o n f e s s i o n

(F(1,52)=5.06,p<.029).7 T h e a d j u s t e d c e l l means a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

t h i s three-way i n t e r a c t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 10.6. There is a

r a t h e r complex p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e l i k e l y m e t h o d of d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s

c a s e . T h e p a t t e r n o f m e a n s i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e m o r e common

f i n d i n g o f t h i s s t u d y t h a t i t i s i n t h e a b s e n c e o f two o f more t y p e s

o f e v i d e n c e t h e p r o s e c u t o r i s l e s s l i k e l y t o t a k e some a c t i o n .

I n s t e a d , i t a p p e a r s t h a t p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e of a c o n f e s s i o n h a s i t s

g r e a t e s t i m p a c t on mode o f case r e s o l u t i o n when t h e r e i s weak t a n g i b l e

262
e v i d e n c e and t h e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e i s f o u n d i n a l o c a t i o n which

r o n g l y l i n k s t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h c o m m i s s i o n of t h e o f f e n s e of r a p e .

would a p p e a r t h a t p r o s e c u t o r s a r e m o r e i n c l i n e d t o t a k e a r a p e c a s e

t o t r i a l whenever s e m e n i s d i s c o v e r e d o n v a g i n a l s w a b s . However, i f

t h e r e i s o n l y weak t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e and t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s c o n f e s s e d t o

t h e o f f e n s e , t h e p r o s e c u t o r a p p e a r s t o e x p e c t a g u i l t y p l e a . Perhaps

i n these circumstances the prosecutor i s u n c e r t a i n about whether

h e l s h e c o u l d win t h e c a s e i n c o u r t , s o h e l s h e w i l l n o t i n s i s t on t r i a l

a n d t h e d e f e n s e may c o n s i d e r t h e p r i o r c o n f e s s i o n a n d s t r e n g t h of

f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t e n t e r i n g a p l e a of g u i l t y . In

t h e a b s e n c e of a c o n f e s s i o n , h o w e v e r , p r o s e c u t o r s e x p e c t t h e c a s e t o

go t o trial--probably expecting the defense t o evaluate a case i n

w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n h a s o n l y weak t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e a n d semen f o u n d

i n s i d e a v i c t i m a s one w i t h s u f f i c i e n t ambiguity t o j u s t i f y a t r i a l .

T a b l e 10.6

A d j u s t e d C e l l Means f o r P l e a / T r i a l D i s p o s i t i o n :
I n t e r a c t i o n of T a n g i b l e E v i d e n c e , L o c a t i o n of F o r e n s i c
E v i d e n c e a n d C o n f e s s i o n f o r Rape C a s e

Tangible Evidence
Strong Weak

F o r e n s i c Evidence L o c a t i o n
Glose D i s t a n t Close Distant

Confession

Yes
No

Codes: p l e a ~ l , t r i a l = 2
 Rob ery Case Likeliho d of resolution yb plea or trial for

the rob ery case was determined by a two-way interaction of

pres nce/absenc fo ey witnes identif cation fo the def nda t

dna
whether there was any forensic evidence available in the case

(F(l,83)=5.5l,p<.021).
Considerat fo adjusted cel means as ociated forme
with
tha efcsug the pres nce of forensic evidenc sah no
tcapmi
on mode fo d i s p o s i t o nw h e n ther isan ey witnes .)l.>p( Yet
fi I
!
ther is on eywitns, the pres ncelabsenc fo forensic evidnc
sah

a staicly signif cant ef ct on whether the case bewil

delp
.)80 .<p,13.7=)38,1(F( The absence of f o r e n s i ce v i d e n c e greatly

increas eht do hilek tha the case wil eb delp (meansoywit

& forensic evidnc-1.5, ey witnes & no forensic ,15.1-ecnedive no

eyewitnes & f o r e n s i ce v i d e n c e - 1 . 5 8 , no eyewitnes C no forensic

At empted Murder Case Prosecutorial expectations about

whet r eht atempd murde case would