Chapter 012

DRAFT

An Introduction to
Forensic Science:
The Science of
Criminalistics
James T. Spencer, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Forensic Science
Syracuse University
CHAPTER 1
Introduction, Historic development and
Legal Roles in Forensic Science
Confidential Correspondence

Copyright © 2007-2012, James T. Spencer
Introduction to Forensic Science Page I.1.1 Draft 2/1/12 J. T. Spencer

An Introduction to Forensic Science
Prof. James T. Spencer, Syracuse University

I. Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction to Forensic Science: Introduction, Historic Development, and Legal
Roles of Forensic Science
1.1. Introduction to Forensic Science
1.2 Brief History of Forensic Science
1.3 Crime Detection in Literature
1.4 Dynamic Duo of Principles
Locard’s Principle
Principle of Individuality
1.5 Legal Precedent of Science in the Courtroom
First There Was Frye
Trilogy of Cases: Daubert and Friends
Recent Additions: Melendez-Dias
References and Bibliography
Glossary of Terms
Questions for Further Practice and Mastery
Copyright © 2007-2012, James T. Spencer

Chapter 1.1: Introduction to Forensics Science
Introduction, Historic Development, and Legal Roles of Forensic Science

Science and the Law: From Ancient Times to CSI and Beyond.

Learning Goals and Objectives

Today, the role of science in the courtroom is undisputed. We rely upon the scientific analysis
and interpretation of key evidence to both exonerate and convict. But this hasn’t always been
true in history. In this chapter an introduction to the role that forensic science has and does
play in criminal justice is presented. Also, the legal underpinnings of the admissibility, use, and
limitations of scientific evidence and testimony are explored. In this chapter, you will need to
understand the following concepts:

Ø What is meant by the terms forensic science and criminalistics;
Ø What is the difference between a basic and an applied science;
Ø What is the relationship between the law, basic science and applied science;
Ø How has forensic science developed throughout history to its present state;
Ø What is Locard’s Exchange Principle;
Ø How has fiction contributed to the development of forensic science;
Ø What features do fictional detectives and modern forensic scientists have in common;
Ø What is the CSI Effect and how has it influenced scientific evidence in the courtroom;
Ø What is meant by the Principle of Individuality;
Ø How do precedent cases pave the way for scientific evidence and testimony;
Ø What are the key features of the Frye and Daubert cases;
Ø How have the Joiner, Khumo and Melendez-‐Dias cases affected expert testimony.

Introduction to the Forensic Sciences

Why are we so fascinated with how “detectives”
use science to discover hidden secrets that challenge our
perceptions of the world? What is it that simultaneously
repels and impels us toward investigations of crime and
criminals? And why are we so obsessed with popular
forensic science and what it can tell us, not only about how
a crime was done, but more intimately, about why a crime
was done? Certainly literature and, now, television have
done much to fuel this interest for generations: there must
be a more fundamental aspect of human nature that drives
us to learn about crime and justice which our popular
detective literature simply serves to exploit.
There are probably as many answers to these
questions as there are people trying to answer them. It
(Photo: http://forensicfact.wordpress.com/)
may be that by believing we can identify those who

commit crimes and then deliver fitting punishments, we gain a sense of security over the vulnerability
and, to some extent, the sense of helplessness that we feel when confronted by seemingly random
crime. It may also give us a chance to explore the darker sides of our human natures in a safe way,
much as we enjoy thrill rides at amusement parks or scary movies. Our interest in crime may even
arise from a desire to seek collective
societal satisfaction and exact a moral
judgment upon those who step outside the
boundaries of our laws – our sense of
fairness. A mutually agreed upon set of
laws are, of course, what establishes a
society in the first place. All sorts of people
worldwide certainly know how to use both
our fascination and fear of crime to help
achieve their own ends.
It seems that people have always
been inherently interested in mysteries and
(Photo: http://forensiclaw.uslegal.com/)
in finding solutions to puzzling problems.
In fact, basic science itself seeks to
fundamentally unravel the mysteries of the universe around us and to provide answers to the “hows
and whys” of nature. This is an intrinsic need of human nature – the “curiosity killed the cat”
syndrome. Forensic science takes this same sense of investigation and discovery and applies it to the
practical need of providing answers to questions revolving around legal issues.
We have long looked to science to inform legal decisions. Historically, advances in forensic
science have occurred not in small steps but in unexpected leaps in either the underlying science and
technology or because of changes in legal policy and practice. Recent changes in forensic science
continue to be revolutionary, rather than just evolutionary, in the way the field is remaking itself.
The entire way that we look at the scientific analysis of evidence has changed and the fundamental
concepts of the scientific method are now being applied widely to crime-related investigations.
These changes in approach and process are providing a new and solid foundation for how science can
can provide amazingly detailed and accurate evidence of great use to legal deliberations.
Forensic science, by its very nature, lies at
the point of convergence between our legal and
scientific systems. While there are many regions
of common purpose, there is, however, a basic and
fundamentally unresolvable tension between these
two systems – the law wants certainty – Col.
Mustard did it in the hall with a lead pipe - but
science can only establish the simplest of facts.
While science can readily disprove an idea or
exonerate a suspect, it cannot prove anything
beyond simple facts and can often only provide
information as to the probability that two events
will occur in a specific fashion (seen in the famous
scientific concept of the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle in Chapter 12). Science can, therefore,
tell us what are the odds of a particular random
occurrence happening, such as the odds of a DNA
(Photo; SU Forensics Program)
13-loci match between two unrelated and random

samples - about 1 in 5 trillion - but it lies with juries to ultimately decide what odds are sufficient to
convict someone of a crime. All of this is made more difficult by the increasing technical complexity
of scientific evidence that juries must try to understand to arrive at a fair and just verdict. It is
important to also recognize that the goals of the two systems are somewhat different - our legal
system primarily seeks justice while the scientific world looks for greater understanding. Therefore,
while both science and the law are best served through “open-ended” investigations leading to greater
understanding, science is perpetually revising its understanding of the Universe while the law has a
fixed end-point in time when a verdict must be rendered.
But how can lay juries composed of a variety of
lay persons sort out real science from pseudo-science?
Until about 1923, each court could define for itself what
it would allow as science in the courtroom. This resulted
in essentially no discrimination between the quacks and
true scientists in court – and the person who was most
convincing to the juries (often the quack who could give
“definitive answers”) typically won. In 1923, however,
all this changed with the outcome of a case involving the
admissibility of a lie-detector test (it was, by the way,
found to be inadmissible but that’s irrelevant to what this
case did for forensic science as a whole). After the
decision in this so-called Frye case, the bona fide
scientific world, instead of each individual court, was
given the responsibility of determining what forensic
evidence was based upon good, tried and true science
and, therefore, allowable in court. This new approach
generally worked rather well but it was very slow to admit the results from any new scientific
methods, typically decades. Then, in 1993, a new
standard, called the Daubert standard, that placed the
responsibility for determining what constituted good
admissible science with the judge, but with the
guidance from the relevant scientific communities.
This changed things dramatically by allowing a very
rapid transition from a basic laboratory discovery into
it’s application to the legal system. For example, in
1985, Alec Jeffries discovered that DNA samples taken
from people could be used for their individual
identification. It took all of 18 months before DNA
evidence was first used to convict a criminal. But new
standards not only allow scientific discoveries into the
courtroom, they also help to filter out the pseudo-
science, quack testimony, and poorly practiced science.
Today, new standards of scientific practice are being
applied to all areas of forensic science with the effect
that the field is truly developing, across the board, into
Computerized skeletal reconstruction, a defensible, rigorous scientific discipline.
Institute of Forensic Medicine, Forensic science, as an applied science, has
University of Bern now developed a valuable relationship with basic
(www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs/media/detailed/vi_c_382.jpg). research and exploration. It scours the basic research

fields and rapidly assimilates new discoveries into new forensic investigative tools. No discipline
appears to be immune from this sharing – medicine, chemistry, physics, psychology, anthropology,
entomology, and many others. It also means the effective end of the general, across-the-board
criminalist – someone like Sherlock Holmes who himself knew the required aspects of all the
necessary fields to solve a crime. Today, there is just too much to be known by any one person and
the field of forensic science has evolved into a variety of complex forensic sub-specialties with expert
specialists. But this does not mean that trained and intelligent investigators have a reduced role in
crime solving – quite the opposite, crimes do not solve themselves. Someone must take all of the
threads provided by forensic science and weave them into a correct solution to the mystery –
something that takes skill, experience, knowledge, creativity, collaboration, and intelligence. But it
also takes top-flight science to analyze and interpret the evidence properly. Just as you probably
wouldn’t go to a thoracic surgeon for a toothache, you also wouldn’t go to a dentist for appendicitis –
each expert has their own specific sphere of knowledge. Teams of experts may be needed to work
together to solve a complex criminal problem: medical examiners, anthropologists, toxicologists,
firearms experts, trace analysts, police investigators, lawyers, and many others many be needed
depending upon the case.
Forensic evidence is often critical in criminal cases. But forensic science also provides
equally valuable information in civil trials – although civil trials typically receive less press coverage
that their criminal counterparts. Thus, the techniques and underlying science presented in this text
cuts equally well across both criminal and civil applications.
Sometimes, however, our reliance upon the practice of forensic science has given us a sense
of false security – science does have some very real limitations when it comes finding and analyzing
evidence. A recent article has suggested that courts rarely eliminate forensic testimony by experts,
even when their error rates are either quite high or
unknown. While the field of forensic science is rapidly
tightening it reliance upon rigorous scientific standards,
there remain instances of “less-than-ideal” practices
and interpretation of scientific evidence in the courts.
There are also times that scientific evidence just can’t
be found or there is too little to complete the analysis.
But the proper inclusion of science in the
courtroom has also led to another problem that the
legal system is dealing with, a problem largely brought
about by the popular depictions of forensics. Too
frequently juries find cases are somehow lacking unless
all possible types of scientific data are presented. For
example, juries feel that even a truly strong case is
somehow weak unless DNA evidence is provided –
even when there is no question of identity or that a
suspect was at the crime scene (often by admission of
the defendant). Juries may not have a clue about what
the actual forensic evidence can tell them but feel that
every possible piece of scientific evidence must be
New Frontiers of Forensic Science - provided. This sometimes leads to silly and expensive
Forensic Radiology: CT of a head uses of forensic testing – such as DNA evidence for
wound, Institute of Forensic Medicine, shoplifting cases. And sometimes, partial or
University of Bern incomplete knowledge can be a dangerous thing – such
(www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs/media/detailed/vi_c_343.jpg).
as when jury members feel that they have acquired a

deep level of understanding of some aspect of forensic science simply by watching television
programs that often depict conveniently inaccurate or incorrect science.
Given all this, however, there are truly remarkable advances in forensic science that have
resulted from discoveries in the laboratory and allied sciences. Science in the courtroom now reaches
the highest standards ever seen in history and each discipline is continually working very hard to
tighten up their standards and practices. It stands as a truly respectable applied science, joining the
ranks as a full member with the other applied sciences of medicine and engineering. Organizations
and agencies, such as the American Academy of Forensic Science (AAFS), the American Society of
Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), the Department of Justice, and the United Nations (UN), are all
working to ensure the highest levels of scientific standard are employed in all forensic disciplines.
Through these efforts, scientists can often provide information that investigators could only dream
about just a few years ago and the courts are now provided with new ways to fairly and justly decide
upon what and who were involved in criminal acts. A strong system of justice requires an equally
strong partner in forensic science. It can now be said that the best in criminal justice comes through
the best in forensic science.
In order to make sense of where the field of forensic science finds itself today, we must
briefly start near the beginning of its development.

Chapter 1.2: Brief History of Forensics Science
Forensic science can be briefly defined as the application of scientific methods and principles
to the investigation of crimes and criminals. In fact, the word “forensic” derives from the same Latin
root as the word “forum”, since it was in the ancient Roman forum that justice was commonly meted
out. It is founded in the basic sciences of chemistry, biology, physics, anthropology, and
mathematics. It is also correctly considered to be an applied science since it uses the fundamental
principles and methods from the basic sciences to answer questions of a more practical nature – in
forensic science that means trying to
answer questions dealing specifically
with legal issues. Forensic science is
often closely affiliated with a field
called criminalistics, defined by the US
National Institute of Justice as “the
science and profession dealing with the
recognition, collection, identification,
individualization, and interpretation of
physical evidence, and the application
of the natural sciences to law-science
matters.”
Modern forensic science draws
upon many aspects of the natural and
applied sciences to help answer six
basic questions of crime: who, what, Figure 1.2.1. Ancient handprints in aboriginal paintings
when, where, why, and how. (archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2010/09/secrets-behind-ancient-red-fingerprints.html).
Throughout the ages, observant people

“The realm of science can be divided into pure have used “forensic” techniques to help
science, or research, and applied science. Basic solve crimes. As far back as thousands of
research seeks to understand the physical world for its years BCE, it appears that humans
own sake; in applied science we seek to use the recognized the unique character of
physical principles discovered to obtain a desired goal. fingerprints for personal identification in
Like medicine or engineering, the forensic analysis of cave paintings and pottery. The early
physical evidence is an applied science, resting firmly Romans and Greeks clearly used their
on a foundation of the basic scientific principles of understanding of the natural world to
physics, chemistry, and biology” [K. Inman and N. deduce logical arguments related to
Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The criminal prosecutions. In fact, some
Profession of Forensic Science, CRC Press, 2001] credit Archimedes as the “father of
forensic science” and there are a number
of instances where he certainly used science to unravel difficult legal questions, including his most
famous “case” concerning the question of cheating in the creation the emperor’s crown (Chapter 11).
The homicide investigation of Julius Caesar employed a detailed autopsy to determine which was the
fatal blow. Much later, Quintillian, a Roman attorney, used a bloody hand print to show that
someone was trying to frame an innocent blind person in the homicide of his mother.

The first real attempt at a Early Development of Forensic Science
comprehensive “forensic science • BCE: Fingerprints appeared as part of prehistoric paintings
textbook”, called Hsi Duan Yu and pottery to reflect the individual identity of each
(“Washing Away of Wrongs” or artist;
“Injustices Rectified”), was published • 2650 BCE: Grand Vizier Imhotep in Egypt uses medical
around 1248 by a Chinese magistrate ideas to investigate crimes
named Sung T’ze. In this book, • 44 BC: Antistius performed a detailed autopsy on Julius
designed to help other magistrates to Caesar to help solve his murder;
investigate crimes, he collected many • 7th Centur AD: Soleiman used fingerprints to validate
historical cases, along with his borrowers and lenders;
personal experiences, in an effort to • 10th CenturyAD: Quintillion used handprints to exonerate a
avoid “injustices” that might lead to framed person;
bloody revenges and tragic feuds • 1248 AD: Sung T’se published the first manual on criminal
based upon unfounded suspicions and investigations;
wrong conclusions. His text, • 1530: Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (Holy Roman
published in the thirteenth century in Empire) gave courts the power to investigate crimes
fifty-five volumes, details many based solely upon the facts of the case;
aspects of forensic science including • 1813: Mathiew Orflia published the first true forensic
examining injuries and wounds, toxicology treatise;
conducting post mortem autopsies, • 1835: Henry Goddard first used ballistics information in a
collecting evidence, and the logical criminal case;
analysis of the information gathered. • 1836: James Marsh presented the first toxicology test to a
For example, in his text he reports the jury trial;
first clear use of forensic entomology • 1856: Sir Wm. Herschel used fingerprints to identify people
to solve a murder case where a worker in the Indian Civil Service;
in the rice fields had been murdered • 1883: Alphonse Bertillion developed a system of
by means of a harvest scythe. Through anthropometry to help identify criminals by physical
physical inspection, such as looking features;
for blood and identifying marks, no • 1891: Hans Gross published book describing how science
evidence could be found linking any can broadly be used in criminal investigations and
possible assailants with the crime. To coined the term “criminalistics”;
solve the case, however, T’ze • 1896: Sir Edward Henry developed the fingerprint
ingeniously had all the suspects line classification system adopted throughout a large part
up before him in the hot afternoon sun of the world;
while holding their scythes. • 1900: Karl Landsteiner discovered human blood groups and
Curiously, only one of the scythes methods to type them;
attracted a swarm of blowflies to the • 1903: New York State prison system adopted fingerprinting
blade – the one with invisible, minute for inmate identification;
traces of blood remaining on the • 1910: Edmund Locard established the world’s first crime
blade. The owner later confessed to laboratory;
the crime based upon the “fly” • 1924: First US Police Crime Laboratory (LA California);
evidence. This use of forensic • 1932: FBI laboratory founded;
entomology to solve a dead-end case • 1987: First use of DNA in courtroom;
was brought about by an • 1996: FBI introduced AFIS computer program for
understanding of how the natural fingerprint comparisons.
world works, a basic tenant of
forensic science.
From the seventeenth century

through the early nineteenth century, a number of attempts were made to use forensic evidence to aid
in criminal cases. The eighteenth century, however, with the Age of Enlightenment encouraging the
use of reason and the burgeoning of scientific thought, brought the focus of science into the area of
legal investigation. During that time, all sorts of scientific investigations probed the workings of
nature and, not surprisingly, the fruits of these studies began to impact legal cases. Books were
written on basic forensic anatomy, document examination, toxicology and other related areas,
although the use of these methods in the courtroom was still rather sporadic and unsystematic.
The basis of modern forensic science really began to unfold, however, in the early to mid
1800’s. Mathiew Orfila published a very detailed account of his work in forensic toxicology in 1813
and was the first person to attempt to
identify blood on pieces of evidence using
chemical tests. In 1835, Henry Goddard Locard’s Exchange Principle
of Scotland Yard used bullet and firearm Edmund Locard had an intense interest in
comparisons to trace bullets found in furthering the use of science in criminal investigations.
victims to the individual weapons that He believed that whenever two objects came into
fired them, thereby tying the victim and contact, physical matter was exchanged between the
the weapon together. Shortly afterwards, two. Applying this idea to evidence simply requires
James Marsh used his newly discovered the investigator to locate and identify the exchanged
test for arsenic in a jury trial while Jean material to show that the two objects had indeed come
Servais Stas reported a way to find plant into contact. For example, during the First World
poisons in a person’s body. In 1856, Sir War, Locard analyzed stains and dirt from the
William Herschel used fingerprints on uniforms of soldiers to help the French Secret Service
Indian civil service papers to verify determine how and where the soldiers had died. He
identify for those who were illiterate. His also analyzed. Locard also identified metal fragments
work was followed by others, such as in the clothing of coin counterfeiters that led to their
Henry Faulds (Scotland), Juan Vucetich confessions. He continued his work throughout his
(Argentina), Francis Galton (UK), life and published his massive, seven-volume Treatise
Edward Henry (UK), and Henry on Criminalistics in 1918.
DeForrest (US), who developed systems Locard, often called the “French Sherlock
for classifying fingerprints for personal Holmes” had much in common with the fictional
identification based upon similarities in detective. Locard, just ten when the Holmes series
patterns found in each print’s details. began, often pointed to the methods of Holmes. For
By the late 1800s, people example, Locard wrote: “I hold that a police expert, or
increasingly began to recognize that an examining magistrate, would not find it a waste of
physical traits, such fingerprints, bones, his time to read Doyle’s novels. For, in the adventures
and blood, could be used to help identify of Sherlock Holmes, the detective is repeatedly asked
a person. This idea led to a the work of to diagnose the origin of a speck of mud, which is
the French Police Officer Alphonse nothing but moist dust. The presence of a spot on a
Bertillion who developed a detailed shoe or pair of trousers immediately made known to
system involving the measurement of Holmes the particular quarter of London from which
anatomical features which he believed his visitor had come, or the road he had traveled in the
could be used to identify a particular suburbs.” Locard used many of Holmes’ techniques –
person, a field called anthropometry. for example, he was able to correctly identify the job
Bertillion also photographed and recorded of 92 of 100 individuals just through an analysis of the
“mug” shots, tattoos, birthmarks, and dust gathered from their eyebrows (“flour in the
scars to provide further identification baker’s, soot in the chimney sweep’s, iron filings in
aids. Prior to Bertillion’s work (and the locksmith’s”).
before fingerprints became widely

accepted around
1900), it was
exceptionally
difficult to identify
criminals,
especially repeat
offenders who
simply changed
their names.
Identification at
the time was
largely based upon Figure 1.2.2. Bertillion’s system of anthropometry for classifying nose types
eyewitness (images.wikia.com/psychology/images/2/27/The_speaking_portrait.jpg).
identification - a
very flawed system. However, despite its innovation, most of Bertillion’s system was abandoned by
the early 1900’s, primarily because of three reasons - two police officers making the same
measurement often came up with quite different values, physical features change with age, and the
advent of quicker and more reliable fingerprinting systems. Bertillion’s system, however, did inspire
people to make detailed measurements of the human body – the forerunner of today’s field of
biometrics.
A few years after Bertillion, in 1889, Alexandre Lacassagne founded the first school to train
people in the developing subfields of forensic science, helping to standardize practice in the different
disciplines. He helped lay the groundwork for a number of forensic disciplines including blood
pattern analysis and firearms
examination. This was soon
followed in 1893 by the
publication of Criminal
Investigation by Hans Gross –
the first book devoted to the
application of scientific methods
to criminal investigations and
the first coining of the term
criminalistics.
In the early years of the
1900s, Edmund Locard served as
an assistant to Prof. Lacassagne
in Lyon and to Bertillion in Paris
where he applied his training in
medicine and law to criminal
Figure 1.2.3. 1910 head-measuring device which Bertillion investigations. In 1910 he left
used in his system of anthropometry Lacassagne after persuading the
(images.wikia.com/psychology/images/2/27/The_speaking_portrait.jpg). French City of Lyon Police
Department to give him space in the attic and two assistants to set up what became the world’s first
police crime laboratory. As a result of his research, he formulated the basis for a principle today
bearing his name that is fundamental to all of forensic science today – Locard’s Exchange
Principle. Locard wrote that:
“Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness,
will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the

fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood
or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him.” (Edmund
Locard)
This principle, first called the Exchange Principle
in 1940, simply states that “a criminal leaves
something behind at a crime scene and also takes
something away with them” – evidence is
transferred and exchanged between the crime
scene and the criminal. The difficulty, of course,
is to find the transferred evidence and to properly
identify it. Success in this task, however, often
sheds light on the central legal issue of placing a
suspect firmly at the crime scene. Locard’s work
led to the establishment of crime labs around the
world and the rapid advance in the widespread
application of scientific inquiry to criminal cases.
The first crime labs in the United States Figure1.2.4. Edmund Locard, 1877- 1966
(http://ejdissectingroom.wordpress.com/tag/edmond-locard/).
began appearing in the early 1920s, with the very
first formally opened in 1924 by the Los Angeles
Police Department. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), founded in 1905 by President
Theodore Roosevelt, established their crime lab in 1932. Today, the FBI crime laboratory is the
largest in the world, performing well over one
million analyses annually. Other labs around the
Locard’s Criminal world soon followed suit and have largely been
Crime historian E.J. Wagner (Canadian modeled upon the FBI’s structure and
Holmes, Volume 33 Number 2, 2010/2011) organization.
points out that Locard also felt that the Crime labs worldwide have experienced
criminal would “undo” themselves through the periods of rapid growth and development in the
“excitement” of the crime. Wagner points to a past half-century. Specifically contributing to this
recent example of Locard’s belief when he growth has been the worldwide battle against
wrote: “A recent example is provided by the illicit drug use and the advent of DNA technology.
terrorist who, in May 2010, left a car loaded
with explosives in New York City’s very busy
Times Square. Evidently the “emotion of the
moment” caused him to forget all his keys in
the vehicle, leaving him unable to access either
his getaway car, parked eight blocks away, or
his domicile. As he also left his hazard lights
on, the attention of the authorities was prompt.
Locard, no doubt, would have smiled.”
In the 1960s especially, large-scale efforts to try to

stamp out illicit drug use through criminal
detection and prosecution were begun. Increased
regulation, accompanied by the overwhelming
connection of drugs and alcohol with crimes (forensicconnect.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/metro-police-crime-lab-faces-backlog-of-
(nearly 80% of all crime are estimated to have cases/).

some drug or alcohol connection), has required the rapid and accurate analysis of samples for
possible drug content. In the late 1980s, DNA technology revolutionized personal identification of
biological samples. While advances in technology have enormously improved our ability to analyze
DNA rapidly and accurately, there remains a mountainous backlog of samples awaiting analysis.
With our growing reliance upon science to shed light on criminal investigations comes, therefore, a
far greater need for the enhanced capabilities and even greater centrality of the crime laboratory.
Today, crime laboratories across the world seek to employ state-of-the-art instrumentation and best-
known practices for evidence analysis. At the same time, they are subject to tighter controls and
stricter standards than ever before as they concurrently deal with an ever-increasing caseload of work.
More recently, the role of crime laboratory and forensic expert has evolved to encompass both
new and “traditional” roles. While analysts are still called upon to examine evidence from the results
of criminal behavior, they are increasingly asked to analyze evidence with broader implications. The
FBI’s Chemical-Biological Sciences Unit conducts forensic examination of chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear materials that may be involved in terrorist activities. The FBI’s Terrorist
Explosive Device Analytical Center provides analysis supporting the agency’s fight against terrorism.
The 21st century brings the inescapable certainty of new challenges and the prospect of far better
tools with which to meet them to the world’s forensic laboratories.
From a recent exhibit at the The National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health: “In
the 19th and 20th centuries, glowing newspaper and magazine accounts of forensic technologies, real
and imaginary, fueled public support for scientific crime detection. Edwin W. Teale's series of
illustrated articles, published in Popular Science Monthly in 1931, conveys some of the enthusiasm
for scientific crime detection. "Working slowly, painstakingly, utilizing every branch of science at
hand," Teale rhapsodizes, "modern man-hunters are arriving at astonishing solutions in baffling
crimes. Their work is analytical, methodical; but their results are amazing, magical."
(www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs/media/detailed/iv_b_103ab.jpg)

Chapter 1.3: Crime Detection in Literature
“‘I've found it! I've found it," he
shouted to my companion, running
towards us with a test-tube in his hand. "I
have found a re-agent which is
precipitated by haemoglobin, and by
nothing else.’ Had he discovered a gold
mine, greater delight could not have
shone upon his features.” These were the
first words uttered by probably the
greatest literature detective of all times,
Sherlock Holmes, in the first book in the
series: A Study in Scarlet.
People have long been fascinated
by the fictional accounts of the super-
sleuths of criminal detection, especially
those whose focus is on using scientific
methods in seemingly miraculous ways
for solving baffling crimes and catching Figure 1.3.1. C. Auguste Dupin, a fictional detective created
the criminals. It may seem surprising to by Edgar Allen Poe in the case of The Purloined Letter
(http://revelationawaitsanappointedtime.blogspot.com/2011/02/c-auguste-dupin.html).
discuss the accounts and methods of fictional detectives

in a forensic science textbook, but the connection is
both justified and important. Unlike many other fields,
the techniques and methods of modern forensic science
have often been foretold and even inspired by their first
“use” in fictional settings. Fingerprints, chemical
analyses for blood, logical deductive reasoning, and
aspects of toxicology are just some of the techniques of
detection that were employed in fictional literature long
before they were widely accepted or even discovered for
real-life situations. The criminal justice community has
often been awakened to the possibility of using the
methods of science to solve difficult problems through
fictional accounts of brilliant detectives, usually to the
thrilled delight of their readers.
One of the very first fictional “forensic”
detectives was C. Auguste Dupin who first arose from
the pen of Edgar Allen Poe in The Murders in the Rue
Morgue (1841), The Mystery of Marie Roget (1842),
and The Purloined Letter (1844). The fictional Dupin
used a combination of deductive reasoning and
insightful imagination to uncover the hidden causes and
effects of baffling criminal mysteries – techniques that
Figure 1.3.2. Poster from a recent were not commonly employed by real investigators
Holmes-based movie (pinartarhan.com/blog/sherlock-holmes/). during the age when the stories were written. Poe’s
work came about even before the term detective had

been put forward. The groundbreaking detective work of the fictional Dupin, a private citizen
investigating crime for his own motivations rather than an official of the police force, proved to be
both very popular with readers and led the way to new ways of thinking about solving crimes. Dupin
also paved the way indirectly for the advent of probably the greatest of all fictional detectives,
Sherlock Holmes. In fact, some of the “tricks” of mental reasoning and logic so closely attributed to
the later Holmes actually first appeared with Dupin. For example, Dupin reads the mind of his friend
(the story’s narrator) by deductively tracing his thoughts through fifteen minutes of silence to arrive,
seemingly by magic, to the same mental place as his friend - just as Holmes did nearly forty years
The Mind Reading Holmes?

(excerpt from The Adventure of the Cardboard Box by Arthur C. Doyle, 1892)
“Finding that Holmes was too absorbed for conversation I had tossed aside the barren paper, and leaning back in my
chair I fell into a brown study. Suddenly my companion’s voice broke in upon my thoughts.
“You are right, Watson,” said he. “It does seem a most preposterous way of settling a dispute.”
“Most preposterous!” I exclaimed, and then suddenly realizing how he had echoed the inmost thought of my soul, I sat
up in my chair and stared at him in blank amazement.
“What is this, Holmes?” I cried. “This is beyond anything which I could have imagined.”
He laughed heartily at my perplexity.
“You remember,” said he, “that some little time ago when I read you the passage in one of Poe’s sketches in which a
close reasoner follows the unspoken thoughts of his companion, you were inclined to treat the matter as a mere tour-de-
force of the author. On my remarking that I was constantly in the habit of doing the same thing you expressed incredulity.”
“Oh, no!”
“Perhaps not with your tongue, my dear Watson, but certainly with your eyebrows. So when I saw you throw down
your paper and enter upon a train of thought, I was very happy to have the opportunity of reading it off, and eventually of
breaking into it, as a proof that I had been in rapport with you.”
But I was still far from satisfied. “In the example which you read to me,” said I, “the reasoner drew his conclusions
from the actions of the man whom he observed. If I remember right, he stumbled over a heap of stones, looked up at the
stars, and so on. But I have been seated quietly in my chair, and what clues can I have given you?”
“You do yourself an injustice. The features are given to man as the means by which he shall express his emotions, and
yours are faithful servants.”
“Do you mean to say that you read my train of thoughts from my features?”
“Your features and especially your eyes. Perhaps you cannot yourself recall how your reverie commenced?”
“No, I cannot.”
“Then I will tell you. After throwing down your paper, which was the action which drew my attention to you, you sat
for half a minute with a vacant expression. Then your eyes fixed themselves upon your newly framed picture of General
Gordon, and I saw by the alteration in your face that a train of thought had been started. But it did not lead very far. Your
eyes flashed across to the unframed portrait of Henry Ward Beecher which stands upon the top of your books. Then you
glanced up at the wall, and of course your meaning was obvious. You were thinking that if the portrait were framed it would
just cover that bare space and correspond with Gordon’s picture there.”
“You have followed me wonderfully!” I exclaimed.
“So far I could hardly have gone astray. But now your thoughts went back to Beecher, and you looked hard across as if
you were studying the character in his features. Then your eyes ceased to pucker, but you continued to look across, and your
face was thoughtful. You were recalling the incidents of Beecher’s career. I was well aware that you could not do this
without thinking of the mission which he undertook on behalf of the North at the time of the Civil War, for I remember you
expressing your passionate indignation at the way in which he was received by the more turbulent of our people. You felt so
strongly about it that I knew you could not think of Beecher without thinking of that also. When a moment later I saw your
eyes wander away from the picture, I suspected that your mind had now turned to the Civil War, and when I observed that
your lips set, your eyes sparkled, and your hands clenched I was positive that you were indeed thinking of the gallantry
which was shown by both sides in that desperate struggle. But then, again, your face grew sadder, you shook your head.
You were dwelling upon the sadness and horror and useless waste of life. Your hand stole towards your own old wound and
a smile quivered on your lips, which showed me that the ridiculous side of this method of settling international questions
had forced itself upon your mind. At this point I agreed with you that it was preposterous and was glad to find that all my
deductions had been correct.”
“Absolutely!” said I. “And now that you have explained it, I confess that I am as amazed as before.”


later to the incredulous Watson (see The “Mind Reading Holmes” inset box). One of Dupin’s
methods was to imagine himself as the criminal – to “put himself into the criminal’s mind”, a
technique now employed in some areas of
forensic psychology, such as in a forensic A Model for Holmes: Dr. Joe Bell
“psychological autopsy” and criminal
Dr. Joseph Bell, a professor of Arthur Conan
profiling. Poe’s Dupin established detective
Doyle’s, was an amazing observer who taught his
fiction as distinct from mystery fiction and
students the power of observation and deductive
focused upon analytical reasoning and logical
reason. One classic example of Bell in instructing his
deduction based upon careful observation. In
students provides a glimpse into his methods:
essence, it encouraged a growing popular
"This, gentlemen" announced Professor Bell,
fascination with the scientific analysis of
"contains a very potent drug. To the taste it is intensely
legal evidence in criminal cases that was just
bitter. It is most offensive to the sense of smell. But I
beginning to happen in real life.
want you to test it by smell and taste; and, as I don’t
While Dupin was the first, Holmes is
ask anything of my students which I wouldn’t be
certainly the most famous of all fictional
willing to do myself, I will taste it before passing it
detectives, whose technique grew from close
round"
observation, detailed measurement, and sharp
Here he dipped his finger in the liquid, and
scientific reasoning – the basis of modern
placed it in his mouth. The tumbler was passed round.
forensic science. Holmes was the 1887
With wry and sour faces the students followed the
creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a
Professor’s lead. One after another tasted the liquid;
Scottish physician who turned to writing to
varied and amusing were the grimaces made. The
help fill the empty hours of a relatively
tumbler, having gone the round, was returned to the
unsuccessful medical practice. The fictional
Professor.
Holmes was loosely based upon Doyle’s
"Gentlemen", said he, with a laugh, " I am
medical school professor. Dr. Joseph Bell,
deeply grieved to find that not one of you has
developed this power of perception, which I so often
speak about; for if you watched me closely, you would
have found that, while I placed my forefinger in the
medicine, it was the middle finger which found its
way into my mouth" (from "The Original of Sherlock
Holmes" by Dr. Harold Emery Jones).
from the University of Edinburgh Medical School.

As his assistant at Edinburgh, Doyle had the chance
to see Bell’s remarkable style and brilliance at work
close up. Doyle wrote that Dr. Bell would often just
sit in his receiving room and “diagnose the people as
they came in, before they even opened their mouths.
He would tell them details of their past life; and
hardly would he ever make a mistake." When later
creating the character of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle
“thought of my old teacher Joe Bell, of his eagle face,
of his curious ways, of his eerie trick of spotting
details. If he were a detective he would surely reduce
Figure 1.3.3. The “Many Faces of this fascinating but unorganized business to
Sherlock Holmes” (http://denverlibrary.org/content/sherlock- something nearer an exact science (Arthur Conan
holmes-game-afoot-again-and-again).
Doyle, from his autobiography).” Doyle once wrote

to Bell saying that “I do not think that [Holmes’] analytical work is in the least an exaggeration of
some effects which I have seen you produce in the out-patient ward.”
The works of Doyle clearly captured the public imagination by solving fictional crimes that
had baffled and bewildered the official police force. People would line up for days outside of news
shops and booksellers awaiting the latest release of the serialized Holmes stories in The Strand
magazine. The Holmes saga remains as
popular today as it was when it was first
released around the turn of the 20th century,
with strong book sales, movies, new
Holmes-based books by current authors,
and worldwide Holmesian Societies
celebrating the life and times of the great
fictional detective (Figures 1.3.2 and 1.3.3).
While Holmes was purely fictional,
essentially an artifact of Arthur Conan
Doyle’s mind, his methods presaged and
inspired many areas of criminal detection,
making a lasting and significant
contribution to modern forensic science.
Sherlock Holmes’ use of keen observational Figure 1.3.4. Agatha Christie’s brilliant detective
skills coupled with his detached scientific Hercule Poirot (http://onelondonone.blogspot.com/2010/09/miss-marple-and-hercule-
poirot.html).
approach shed light on seemingly
intractable criminal problems. Holmes used
fingerprints before they were employed in real life investigations. And he certainly employed
forensic chemistry in many of his “cases” long before the actual chemical analyses existed. Holmes,
apart from what some modern detractors might say, was a consummate chemist and scientist. He saw
the need for detailed comparative analysis when
Member’s Oath The Detection Club he described his manuscript on a method for
distinguishing “140 types of tobacco by their
Do you promise that your detectives ashes” and the “anatomy of the human ear”. At
shall well and truly detect the crimes the time when the Holmes saga began, police
presented to them using those wits which it agencies were typically rather slow in adopting
may please you to bestow upon them and not new methods into their investigations – often
placing reliance on nor making use of Divine taking decades to accept new practices. Holmes’
Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo use of fingerprints, chemical analyses, ballistics,
Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence, or Act handwriting analyses, cryptology, microscopic
of God? examinations of trace evidence, and many others
[Members of the club have included E.C. Bentley,
methods certainly helped move police agencies to
G.K. Chesterton, Agatha Christie, Freeman Wills
Crofts, Arthur Morrison, Baroness Emma Orczy, and consider these techniques long before they would
Dorothy L. Sayers] have under other circumstances.
The exploits of Holmes have served to
inspire generations of detectives, both real and
imaginary, to employ logical reasoning in their case work, including Edmund Locard. In fact,
Sherlock Holmes (and not Arthur Conan Doyle) was inducted in 2002 into the UK’s Royal Society of
Chemistry as a Fellow, a very prestigious honor, for his “pioneering work in forensic science.”
Holmes’ famous words from The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier (1926) well encapsulates his
reliance upon careful deduction and analytical reasoning based in the scientific method: “The

process” I said “starts upon the supposition that when you have eliminated all which is impossible,
then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
While Holmes occupies a central place in the development of modern forensic science, Doyle
clearly is not the only author whose work has contributed to the development of modern forensic
science. Characters such as Dorothy L. Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey and Agatha Christie’s Hercule
Poirot (Figure 1.3.4) and Miss Jane Marple have helped lead the way for the use of deductive
reasoning and application of the tenants of the scientific method into actual criminal investigations.
These and other authors formed The Detection Club in 1930 to help each other with technical and
scientific aspects of their crime fiction
and debated new directions for real
science to follow in criminal detection.
Their stories helped to cement in the
public opinion the centrality of science
in providing vital information in
criminal cases. The works of these
authors, in a way, have continued the
Holmesian tradition, often through
startlingly clear analyses based upon
knowledge and observation, and with no
less interest and devotion to their
exploits by their readers.
Today, modern authors are
continuing this long-standing tradition
of science-based fictional super-sleuths.
Laboratory-based forensic scientists and
Figure 1.3.5. Cast of CSI: New York Crime Scene Holmesian detectives have made their
Investigation (http://watchcsiny.info/season-6/). way into our homes and theaters
through television and movies.
Detective, true crime, and forensic practitioners are perennially among the most popular of television
shows. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Services, Bones, Monk,
Cold-Case Files, and House are just a few of the popular programs that rely heavily upon scientific
evidence to solving baffling cases, often with unlikely and intriguing twists and turns of the plot.
Recently, six of the top ten television shows
were, not surprisingly, detective shows. These
shows have spun off into a multitude of other
fictional programs and movies that follow
forensic pathologists, toxicologists,
anthropologists, chemists, trace analysts, and
many other forensic specialty professions as
they go about their work. The general public is
now not only comfortable with forensic
evidence as never before, they actually seek out
opportunities to test their “forensic skills” with
whodunits.
But television shows and movies, such
as CSI and House, have also had a much
broader impact upon the criminal justice and
Figure 1.3.6. Cast from the hit TV show House
medical examiner’s world in ways far more (www.entertainmentwallpaper.com/download/20017496/).

important to real life than just providing interesting entertainment and education. They raise both the
expectation and the demand by the general public regarding the information that forensic science can
provide, often by exaggerating to impossible levels the role that forensic science plays in cases.
These programs are believed by many
legal professionals to inspire an CSI Effect
unrealistic need and reliance upon Definition of CSI Effect (Nolo’s Plain English
“high tech” methods for all cases, Law Dictionary): “A phenomenon reported by prosecutors
both in police work and in legal who claim that television shows based on scientific crime
prosecutions. Cases are considered solving have made actual jurors reluctant to vote to
“weak” unless all possible forms of convict when, as is typically true, forensic evidence is
forensic evidence are exhaustively neither necessary nor available.”
presented during a trial, even if they In a recent CSI Effect study (N.J. Schweitzer and
are irrelevant. For example, in a M.J. Saks Jurimetrics Vol. 47, p. 357, 2007) “Compared
recent case, the jury asked the judge to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the
why a DNA analysis of a blood forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less
sample from the crime scene had not believable. Regarding their verdicts, 29% of non-CSI
been performed to show it came from viewers said they would convict, compared to 18% of CSI
the defendant – the reason it had not viewers.”
was that the defendant admitted that
he had been at the crime scene and
that the blood was his. In this case, the DNA analysis would have provided no additional information
that the court didn’t have already have and was,
(www.aboveaverageart.com/2010/09/) therefore, completely superfluous and certainly
!not needed – and, as we’ll see, therefore, not
even admissible. The term “CSI Effect” has
been coined to describe the observation that
juries now demand and require forensic
evidence in criminal trials, even when unnecessary.

This not only raises the prosecution’s burden of
proof for a conviction to levels that just cannot be
delivered by current science, the defense is also

burdened by the jury’s exaggerated faith in the
reliability of forensic evidence. This demand for
more and more forensic analysis has placed
increasing workloads upon existing forensic
laboratories, with associated sky-rocketing costs for
analytical equipment, specialized analyst training,
and court appearances as experts that take scientists
away from the lab to explain the complex and
potentially useless evidence to lay juries. Some Sherlock Holmes from the case of The
prosecutors are even now going to the lengths of Man with the Twisted Lip
(www.life.com/image/50670138).
bringing in experts to inform juries that they don’t

need certain types of forensic evidence to render a verdict and that the absence of this evidence does
not weaken a case. The CSI Effect has certainly engendered the public image that forensic science is
fast, infallible, and always successful in catching the criminal – things that in reality are not always
true. Not all crime scenes deliver testable DNA or other evidence – and evidence can degrade from
environmental factors before it even reaches the lab.
Maybe part of the appeal of Holmes and other fictional detectives is that they personify all
that we hope to see from forensic science – analytic reasoning, brilliant deduction, careful
observation, detailed measurements, and supportable conclusions - all this while maintaining the
highest ethical standards. But the successful characters also retain some of their clearly human traits
and quirks that we can personally relate to and which endear them to us – they are, after all, human,
and they create a connection between the impersonal and logical realm of forensic science and the
real human world. Real-life forensic science also certainly has it’s human side, crimes are not solved
by science – it still takes a human intellect and creativity to bring it all together. But, despite all this,
fiction has certainly been in the vanguard of the application of science to law that is so central to
criminal justice today.

Chapter 1.4: Dynamic Duo of Principles
Two basic principles have come to underlie much of forensic science: Locard’s Exchange
Principle and The Principle of Individuality. While often taken for granted, reliance upon these basic
concepts allows us to fundamentally apply scientific methods for criminal detection.
Locard’s Principle
In section 1.2, the concept of Locard’s Exchange Principle was first introduced. This
principle is central to all of forensic evidence and briefly states that when two objects come into
contact, some materials or information is transferred between the two. If this transferred evidence
can be found, then the connection between the two can be established. For example, glass shards,
pollen, or DNA found on a suspect’s
clothing can link them directly to a
victim or crime scene. Alternatively,
body fluid, hairs, or fingerprints from
a suspect found at the crime scene can
likewise link the two.
The common thread which
links together items of evidence often
can be the definitive clue needed in a
case. Locard’s principle also goes,
however, beyond criminal cases to
include application in civil trials,
identification of remains (even if the
Figure 1.4. Locard’s Principle says that whenever two identification is primarily for recovery
objects touch, something is transferred. This picture such as human remains from combat
shows a microscopic crystal of cocaine that was zones), authentication of important
transferred to a dollar bill and trapped in the fibers making
up the bill when the two can into contact (www.businesspundit.com/up-to-
90-of-us-bills-contain-traces-of-cocaine/).
documents, and other cases. Finding an artist’s

inadvertent fingerprint (something that they
“left behind”) on a canvas can verify a
painting's authenticity or connecting a parent to
their offspring via DNA data are all simple
extensions of Locard’s Principle.
Principle of Individuality
This idea was first borrowed from
philosophy which states that each person is
separate and different from all other people, no
matter how similar they may otherwise appear.
In forensic science, however, the principle of
individuality (or principle of uniqueness) states
that even though two objects may be
indistinguishable, they can never be exactly Figure 1.4.1. All things, even though they may be
identical. This means that, while we might not indistinguishable, are not identical
(www.theplanetfunniestanimals.com/2010/08/identical-twins/).
be able to tell the difference between two

objects, at some level – maybe even only at the atomic or molecular level – they must be different.
This idea says that we should be able to determine whether two samples came from one original
source or from two completely separate sources. Once again, this idea is useful in tying together two
pieces of evidence when they come from a single, unique source. The main question, of course, is do
we have the ability to be able to distinguish between two objects given the experimental techniques
available to us. For example, even identical twins are not exactly identical – one may have a scar or a
different fingerprint that serves to distinguish one from the other. In this instance, the method for
distinguishing between the two is fairly easy – look for scars and other small physical differences. In
forensics, for example, two bullets may be made successively by the same manufacturer at the same
time and packaged together but when fired from a gun, differences can be found to distinguish
between the two. The application of the principle, in this case, is limited by our ability to find
uniquely distinguishing features separating the two bullets. This principle, in theory, allows us to
look for similarities and differences to support or refute connections between two pieces of evidence,
presuming we can find these differences
Sometimes, a third principle, called the principle of comparison, is used to measure the
similarities and differences between people or evidence.
In the following chapter, we will examine the characteristics of evidence that can allow us to
build upon the principle of individuality in forensic cases by distinguishing evidence by it class or
individual characteristics.

Chapter 1.5: Legal Precedent of Science in the Courtroom
Societies are fundamentally based upon a mutually agreed upon set of laws that establish
acceptable boundaries of behavior for its citizens and allow for both the punishment of those who
step over the boundaries as well as the protection of innocent members from the criminal actions of
others. Without laws, we cannot have a civilized, safe, and fair society. Laws are written and
decided upon through legislative action but it is up
to the courts to find ways to interpret laws in
relation to a wide variety of actual practice.
Legal practice in most common law
systems, including in the United States and much
of the world, is rooted in the use of precedent
cases that carve a pathway through the legal forest
upon which future cases may travel more
smoothly. These key cases also serve to translate
the intent of our written laws into actual day-to-day
practice and to provide some consistency between
cases. Precedent cases form guides and, in some
cases, dictate future court decisions. They provide
Figure 1.5.1. Legal precedent help clear the specific examples and authority for judges to
path for future cases (http://factoidz.com/law-101-legal-precedent/). follow when they encounter new cases that are
similar to those that have already been decided.
Black’s Law Dictionary refers to a legal precedent as the "rule of law established for the first time by
a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.” In a way,
this process can speed up the judicial process by not having to “reinvent the wheel” each time a
particular legal question arises in a case, such as whether fingerprint or toxicology evidence is
admissible. In fact, decisions from higher courts are generally binding to lower courts within a
system of justice (something legally called stare
decisis). For example, US Supreme Court
decisions are binding in all lower courts in the
Federal judicial system, although not necessarily
binding to a state court system (unless the state
court is ruling on federal law). In other words,
courts try to stand by and adhere to legal
questions that are already settled.
The fundamental role of forensic science
is to inform courts on scientific and technical
areas where they lack knowledge or expertise.
But the courts usually need guidance about what
constitutes good science and what does not –
court proceedings definitely need to be protected
from misleading, improper, incorrect, and
unreliable scientific evidence and testimony. As
scientific concepts and methods become
increasingly complex, the gulf between what is Figure 1.5.2. Courts rely upon expert
good science and the public’s understanding of testimony to inform the courts in areas where
science continues to grow. In the years leading it lacks expertise (www.ehow.com/info_8069907_principles-expert-
testimony.html).
up to 1923, “scientific” and “expert” testimony

was often poorly regulated and the decision about what to believe was left up to the jury to decide
without any real help or guidance. Self proclaimed (and often profit seeking) “experts” could say
almost anything they wanted to, regardless of whether it was founded in good practice or not, and
court records show that some of the most misguided and incorrect testimony was presented alongside
good scientific testimony without any guide for distinguishing between the two. Sometimes, defense
lawyers presented many conflicting ideas through their “experts” simply to confuse juries and steer
them away from true scientific findings. Juries were stuck in the middle and often chose to believe
what they could understand or decided based on who had the best presentation – not on the scientific
merits of the case. This situation needed to change, and did in 1923 with the Frye case (vide infra).
Today, the admission of scientific evidence and expert testimony in court proceedings is
regulated by a web of precedent cases and rules of evidence. The best forensic analysis and
testimony is, of course, useless unless it is admissible in court. Admissibility standards have been
developed over the years pertaining to exactly how and when scientific evidence can be admitted into
court proceedings. A few specific precedent cases, however, have come to be so important today in
determining the admissibility of forensic evidence in court that it is important to briefly examine
these central cases.
First There Was Frye

In November of 1920, a notable physician in Washington, DC, Dr. Robert Brown, was shot
to death in his own office. Dr. Brown’s partner and other witnesses saw the shooting and pursued the
attacker until being shot at themselves. The attacker got away. Seven months later, however, James
Frye was captured during an armed robbery attempt and confessed to both the robbery and the
murder of Dr. Brown. Frye later took back his confession before his trial on the advice of his
defender. But Frye’s defense case was very weak – no credible alibi that would hold up in court was
found and other evidence against him was
strong. In an attempt to build a case, Frye’s
defense lawyer had a very crude version of
the lie detector performed on Frye by
psychologist Dr. William Marston (Figure
1.5.3). The test was very simple – Frye was
asked a question and his blood pressure and
heart rate was measured. Probably not
surprisingly, Frye “passed” the lie detector
test and was declared innocent by the analyst.
But when the defense tried to enter this
evidence into court, the judge ruled that the
evidence was not admissible on scientific
validity grounds (the entire debate was held
in full hearing of the jury so they knew the Figure 1.5.3. Older versions of the lie detector
result of the lie detector, anyway). After a used by Dr. Wm. Marston in the Frye case relying
four-day trial, Frye was found guilty. The upon blood pressure and heart rate measurements
(www.flavinscorner.com/drww.htm).
case was appealed, ultimately to the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, on the grounds that the lie detector evidence
should have been admitted. The decision to exclude the lie detector evidence was, however, upheld
on the appeal and the court set the first real precedent for determining when scientific evidence could
be admitted in court when they wrote:
“Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental
and demonstrative stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the

evidential force of the principle must be reorganized, and while courts will go a long way
in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific principle or
discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to
have general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs (Circuit Court of
Appeals in the District of Columbia, 1923, Judge Van Orsdel).”
The Frye decision became the
standard for the admissibility of all
expert scientific testimony in the US,
both in federal and in state courts. The
key feature of the Frye Standard is that
the “relevant field” of science became
the decider as to what was admissible in
court. A potential expert and their
testimony must meet the “Frye test”
before they were allowed to testify and
have the evidence admitted. For
example, a toxicologist cannot testify
about a surgical procedure as surgery is
not his particular field. Similarly, a
toxicologist cannot testify about a
chemical test that has not been generally
accepted by other toxicologists. The
courts were also provided guidance as to
Figure 1.5.4. Modern polygraphs (lie detectors)
how to determine whether or not a
monitor several types of physiological responses
particular technique has met this
including blood pressure, heart rate, skin
standard. A scientific technique meets
conductivity/perspiration (www.quinn-curtis.com/QCRTGraphJavaProdPage.htm).
the Frye standard by demonstrating that
it appears in published books and
papers, has been accepted in prior judicial decisions, and has been in existence for a long time.
Frye, therefore, set the first standard
for the admissibility of scientific evidence
in court. It is, however, relatively slow and
rigid when it comes to admitting newly
discovered methods since it requires broad
acceptance in the field. Today, about half
of the US state courts still are governed by
the Frye standard.
A Trilogy of Cases: Daubert and Friends

In the 1990s, a trio of cases helped
to revise the Frye standard and set new
guidelines on what types of forensic
evidence and expert testimony could be Figure 1.5.5. Frye established the scientific
admissible in court. In the years between community as the decider concerning what was
1923 and 1993, new rules of evidence were valid science and what was not for use in court
passed by Congress and a great deal of admissibility (www.stus.com/stus-search.php).
conflicting precedent law had occurred in different courts, leading to some confusion about the
admissibility of scientific and expert testimony.

Daubert: In 1993, a new case challenged the centrality of Frye and ended up setting a new
standard. In this case, a group of people
alleged that a pregnancy “morning sickness”
drug, called Bendectin, had caused birth defects
in their children. They sued the Merrell Dow
Pharmaceutical Company, the manufacturer of
the drug, for damages. The case, called
Daubert (pronounced “Dow”-“Bert”) v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, was tried in US
federal court. Dow argued that the plaintiffs
(people bringing the suit) did not have a case
since Daubert’s experts did not present any
published scientific link between Bendectin and
birth defects and that, therefore, there was no
link between the drug’s use and limb
deformaties (Figure 1.5.6). Daubert’s experts
presented evidence suggesting that Bendectin
could cause birth defects, but this evidence was Figure 1.5.6. Bendectin vs limb deformation plot
(www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712662_7).
based upon new analytical methods that had not
gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. The court granted a judgment in favor of
Dow and said that the Daubert side had not presented admissible evidence under the Frye standard.
The case was ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court which reversed the lower courts decision
concerning the admissibility of the scientific evidence, ruling that the 1975 Federal Rules of Evidence
effectively replaced Frye as the new standard:
“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an
opinion or otherwise (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702).”
The importance of this new rule replacing Frye is that expert testimony does not require
general acceptance by the scientific community to be admissible in court. Instead, it sets up a series
of three standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony;
• Scientific Basis: The testimony must be grounded in supported scientific knowledge gained
through the application of the scientific method. The method must be based upon sufficient
fact or data, be the product of reliable methods, and must be properly carried out.
• Relevance: The testimony must assist the trier of facts (usually the judge or jury) in deciding
the issues at hand – there must be a connection between the knowledge being presented and
the issue in question – no relevance, no admission to court.
• Judge as “Gatekeeper”: The judge is designated as the person who decides whether a
particular piece of scientific testimony is sufficiently established and is relevant to the issue at
hand. This requires the judge to determine if the “reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be
applied.”

The new Daubert standard, now used in all federal courts and about half of state courts, is
more flexible in admitting new types of
evidence and relies upon the adversarial
system of examining and cross-examining
witnesses to test the soundness of the
scientific principles presented. As in Frye,
however, judges still can rely upon help from
the scientific field by considering:
• if the technique or theory has
been tested;
• if the technique or theory has
been subjected to peer review;
• if the technique’s potential
error rate is known;
• if there are standards Figure 1.5.7. The Joiner case requires there to be
controlling the performance of a clear link between an expert’s testimony and the
the analysis; facts being presented (www.stus.com/stus-
category.php?cat=CAS&sub=EVI&name=evidence+law+cases).
• if the theory or method has
received widespread Definitions and Key Cases
acceptance within the
appropriate community. Precedent: a legal principle or rule that comes from
a court decision that can be used as a point of
Joiner: In 1995, a case called reference for deciding other cases.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, was brought Binding Precedent: A decision from a higher case
that asserted, based on loosely-linked that must be followed by lower courts in
animal studies, that certain chemicals used similar cases.
by the company caused cancer in a patient. Frye Standard: the 1923 precedent that sets the
In the decision, the court limited how far an standard for admissibility of scientific evidence
expert may “stray” from either the data or in court as requiring general acceptance of the
from commonly accepted practice. They scientific methodology in its relevant field.
said that: “conclusions and methodology Daubert Standard: sets the trial judge as the
are not separate. Experts commonly “gatekeeper” for what scientific testimony is
extrapolate from existing data but nothing admissible.
requires a court to admit opinion evidence Joiner Case: requires that experts limit their
that is connected to the data only by the opinions to straightforward extensions of the
expert themselves.” This means that the data and have limitations on what they can say.
court may conclude that there is too great a Khumo Tire Case: requires that an all expert
gap between the data and the opinion of the testimony meets the Daubert standard – not
expert to allow it into court. just scientific expert testimony.
Khumo: In 1999, a case was Stare decisis: from the Latin “stare decisis et non
brought against the Khumo Tire Company quieta movere” "to stand by decisions and not
in which a plaintiff claimed that an disturb the undisturbed. - decisions from higher
automotive tire blowout, and subsequent courts are generally binding to lower courts.
accident, resulted from a defective tire and Melendez-Dias: defendents may require analysts to
that the manufacturer of the tire was at “face” them in court when presenting scientific
fault. The “expert” for the people bringing analyses.
the case (plaintiffs) relied upon a method
that was determined not to be scientifically

valid or even tested. The judge excluded the testimony. When the case finally reached the Supreme
Court, they ruled that the Daubert standard applied to all expert testimony – whether scientific or
“skill or experience-based”. They said that the court must “make certain that an expert…employs
the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant
field.”
These three cases – Daubert, Joiner, and Khumo – have set the standard for the admission of
forensic evidence in the courtroom today and form the basis of how forensic analysis makes its way
into trials.
Recent Additions: Melendez-Dias Case

A very recent decision by the Supreme Court has added a new wrinkle to the admissibility of
forensic evidence and testimony in court. In 2009, the prosecutor in a drug case introduced the
chemical analysis from the state’s
crime lab stating that the material
seized by police was cocaine. The
analysis was performed using
standard practice, sworn before a
notary public, and submitted in the
normal fashion to the court. The
defense, however, argued that the
actual individual who ran the
analysis must testify in person using
as a basis for their argument the
constitutional requirement that a
person has the right to face their
accusers. The Supreme Court
upheld the defense’s argument with
the result that the individual analyst Figure 1.5.8. Lab technicians may be required to personally
who runs a test on a sample may be testify about their analysis based on the Melendez-Diaz Case
required to testify in person. (www.georgiafederalcriminallawyerblog.com/drug_crimes/).
Concerns about this new

requirement include problems connected with taking analysts out of the lab where they do their work
and requiring them to participate in lengthy courtroom trials. It also raises the problem of what
happens when an analyst is no longer available to testify (e.g., retires, leaves employment, dies, etc.)
– presumably in this case, the evidence would not be admissible. The Supreme Court is already
considering a challenge to this decision so the book is not yet closed.
Through these five cases, we now have a pretty clear picture of when and how scientific
evidence can be admitted into court. In the following chapter, we will explore how forensic evidence
makes it way from a crime scene to the laboratory and, ultimately, into court.

Chapter 1 References and Bibliography

Katherine Ramsland, Beating the Devil’s Games: A History of Forensic Science and Criminal
Investigation, Berkley Trade, 2008.
Suzanne Bell, Crime and Circumstance: Investigating the History of Forensic Science, Praeger Press,
2008.
Ronald R. Thomas, Detective Fiction and the Rise of Forensic Science, Cambridge University Press,
2004.
E.J. Wagner, The Science of Sherlock Holms: From Baskerville Hall to the Valley of Fear, the Real
Forensics Behind the Great Detective’s Greatest Cases, John Wiley, 2007.
Collin Beavan, Fingerprints: The Origin of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched
Forensic Science, Hyperion Press, 2002.
Richard E. McDorman, Liberty and Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom: Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the New Role of Scientific Evidence in the Criminal Courts, 2010.
D. Shelton, Forensic Science in Court: Challenges in the Twenty First Century, Rowman and
Littlefield, 2010.
Wilson Wall, Forensic Science in Court: The Role of the Expert Witness, John Wiley, 2010.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Anthropometry – A detailed system involving the measurement of anatomical features.
Binding Precedent: A decision from a higher case that must be followed by lower courts in similar
cases.
C. Auguste Dupin - The first fictional detective created by Edgar Allen Poe.
Criminalistics – (US National Institute of Justice definition) “the science and profession dealing
with the recognition, collection, identification, individualization, and interpretation of
physical evidence, and the application of the natural sciences to law-science matters.”
CSI Effect: An empirical theory that proposes that television shows based on crime solving with a
heavy reliance upon forensic science has made jurors in real-life case more reluctant to vote to
convict when some forms of forensic evidence is neither necessary nor available for the trial.
Daubert Standard: An US Supreme Court ruling that sets the trial judge as the “gatekeeper” for
what scientific testimony is admissible.
Forensic Science - The application of scientific methods and principles to the investigation of crimes
and criminals.
Frye Standard: The 1923 case that set the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in court
as requiring general acceptance of the scientific methodology in its relevant field.
Joiner Case: The case that set the standard to require that experts limit their opinions to
straightforward extensions of the data and placed limitations on what they can say in court.
Khumo Tire Case: The precedent case that requires an all expert testimony to meet the Daubert
standard – not just scientific expert testimony.
Locard’s Exchange Principle – A fundamental principle of forensic science that states that a
criminal leaves something behind at a crime scene and also takes something away with them
when the leave. This means that evidence is transferred and exchanged whenever two objects
come into contact.
Melendez-Dias: The US Supreme Court case that allows defendants to require analysts to “face”
them in court when presenting scientific analyses.
Precedent: A legal principle or rule that comes from a court decision that can be used as a point of
reference for deciding other cases.
Principle of Comparison – A concept that measures the similarities and differences between people
or evidence.
Principle of Individuality (principle of uniqueness) – The idea that even though two objects may be
indistinguishable, they can never be exactly identical.
Sherlock Holmes - Victorian super-sleuth created by Arthur Conan Doyle.
Stare decisis: from the Latin “stare decisis et non quieta movere” "to stand by decisions and not
disturb the undisturbed. The meaning is that decisions from higher courts are generally
binding to lower courts.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER PRACTICE AND MASTERY

1.1 What is forensic science?
1.2 What is the Daubert standard?
1.3 What is Locard’s Exchange principle?
1.4 What is meant by the “CSI Effect” when it comes to jury expectations during a trial?
1.5 What is the Principle of Individuality?
1.6 What is meant by a “precedent” case? Give examples of precedent cases and explain their
significance.
1.7 How did the Frye decision of 1923 impact the admissibility of forensic evidence?
1.8 What standard replaced the Frye standard and how did it change the use of forensic evidence at
trial?
1.9 List and explain the three parts of the Daubert standard.
1.10 Explain the importance of the Joiner (1995) and Khumo (1999) cases as they pertain to
forensic testimony.


Chapter 012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © 2007-2012, James T. Spencer

Throughout the ages, observant people

In the 1960s especially, large-scale efforts to try to

discuss the accounts and methods of fictional detectives

The Mind Reading Holmes?

from the University of Edinburgh Medical School.

evidence in criminal trials, even when unnecessary.

documents, and other cases. Finding an artist’s

First There Was Frye

A Trilogy of Cases: Daubert and Friends

Recent Additions: Melendez-Dias Case

Concerns about this new

You might also like