You are on page 1of 35

 For. Scien.

– application of scientific disciplines in legal setting

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE Ear impressions – whether ear lobe attached or not is class characteristic that can excl. suspect
a. Doesn’t have characteristics like fingerprint b. No supporting data/stats it holds up as indiv. identifier, but still accepted by courts c. If ear print has insuffic characteristics to estab match w/ perp, ear pics are even less reliable as ID source (b/c pics can be manipulated) 1. State v. Kunze (ear impression case): involved ear impr. left at c/s. a. Issue: is ear print suffic. source to ID suspect to the excl. of all others? b. Holding: ear print ID not admissible as scientific evid. under gen. acceptance Frye test c. Scientific disciplines involved: (1) fingerprinting;(2) earprinting; (3) anthropology  def’s glove left impression at crime scene; (4) toolmarks  impr. made by Kunze’s ear is like toolmark impr. b/c earprint leaves impr. like bullet leaves impr.  Identical twins have identical DNA but diff’t fingerprints d. Ear impression, not ear print – used ear impression as it’s part of “impression evid.” & has broader range –Grubb, impression expert who can provide expert testimony Basic Rule on Exemplars (scotus)  is there a reliance issue? a. It’s expected that ppl leave lip prints on glasses, but don’t expect to leave ear prints on doors… Method of Taking Exemplars f/ Obtaining Match a. Done to excl. suspect (prove exemplar isn’t match to ear print left on door i. Need to locate dissimilarity as oppose to trying to find a match – falsifiability. Insufficient if expert fails to look f/ dissimilar characteristics  would estab that print is diff’t Criminologist – studies crimes based on cause of a crimes & nature of behavioral pattern neces. to commit given crime VS Criminalist – studies crime scenes & evid. left at scene; examines scientific data a. Equivalent to forensic scientist on east coast b. Forensic science – incl. other disciplines (pathology, med examiners, etc.) c. Hypo –you have D’s shoe & piece of rubber from c/s  does it match rubber from D’s shoe?

2.

3.

4. 5.

EXPERT TESTIMONY / EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY
1. Oken v. State  court had broad discretion on expert admissibility matters

**appl ct. never overrules trial ct. on admissib. issue**
i. R. 702: expert is neces. to inform jury on subj matter of which they can’t inform themselves (lack expert knowl) – b/c don’t want to leave subst. issues to jury speculation 1

court is who determ. witn. qualification & expert testimony admissib. rather than expert testifying & then jury not crediting the testimony • a person can’t come into ct. & claim to be an expert; specific rules must be followed 2. Bodily Fluid as Trace Evidence: non-secreters: some ppl don’t secrete partic. bodily fluid. If bodily fluid of perp is at c/s  non-secreter suspect should be excluded. a. DNA Evidence: DNA analysis/testing is NOT ABO blood typing i. If deft’s blood type matches perp’s  consistency only is shown 3. Frye Pretrial Hearings [in Frye j/d] – hearings to consider novel scientific evid. Considers 2 issues: (1) under Frye std., are evid., concl. reached & method used generally accepted in relevant scientific community? & (2) Were methods used reliably appl. in the case?
 CA, FL, NY = all Frye j/d’s on expert & quasi-scientific testimony a. Minority Frye rule: if evid. is unique, both sides must be heard on disputed scientific issue i. if not novel  cant raise Daubert or Frye argument on admissib. i.e., fingerprinting: not unique currently  cant excl. evid. from fingerprinting by pointing out flaws. b. Six Frye Issues: i. (1) qualifying the expert; ii. (2) expert’s op. – how’s it stated (e.g., used terms like likely, probable, morphologically similar (has same bkgr) consistent w/, etc. iii. (3) proponent’s burden of proof  preponderance of evid. iv. (4) do rules of evid. apply? v. (5) distinguishing class characteristics (everyone has) from accidental (indiv.) characteristics (unique to a partic. person) • Accidental characteristic: vital f/ making an ID b/c it is unique to the person • Class characteristic - never adeq. f/ ID purposes, only f/ excl. vi. (6) both sides must be head on the issue (minority rule) 4. Problem of Courts Relying on Past Court Rulings on Evidence / Expert Admissib. a. Courts should not rely on case law in ruling on admissib. issues b/c sitting ct. may not know reason f/ past ct. ruling a certain way on an admissib. dispute or crediting/(not) scientific evid. b. State v. Polite (FL) – Frye j/d  evid. inadmissible c. People v. Anzillotti (CA) – “  admissib. undisputed d. Mark Dallagher Royal ct. of Justice (2002) (England)  conviction held as “unsafe” & set aside 5. In General: ear print convictions are worth challenging, have been challenged & been proven to be flawed (Fisher’s Forensics Under Fire)

FORENSIC EVIDENCE GENERALLY
1. Three Purposes of Forensic Evid.: (1) inculpate; (2) exculpate; (3) recreate c/s (incl determin. of manner, means & cause) 2

 Value of Forensic Evidence – neces. to excl. innocent people; goal = identific. to excl. of all others

a. DNA plays pivotal role in crime 2. Obtaining Meaningful & Admissible Scientific Evid  must be derived using scientific methodology a. Valid: test must be capable of ID’ing the specific type of evid. searched f/ b. Reliable: test must produce accurate results every time c. Relevant: to the issue in dispute d. Tested: requires: (1) measuring against gen. accepted std.; (2) by judicial gatekeeper (as to admission); (3) by adversarial system 3. Associative Evid. – used to excl. / incl. connection to victim; helps to build circumstantial case 4. Inconclusive Evid. – has value f/ comparison purp. but minutia of evid. is missing. Thus, determination = inconclusive. E.g., latent print 5. Locard’s Exchange Principle: every contact one makes w/ anything/anyone else leaves a trace a. Forensic scientists & Evidence: i. Have to find it – sometimes tough to find & invisible even under microscope ii. Have to recogn. its value – to that partic. case iii. Have to recover it – evid. must be recovered carefully or else risk losing probative value iv. Have to maintain its integrity – otherwise loses probative value v. Have to analyze it – often too much evid. to analyze & not enough lab staff vi. Have to formulate an opinion vii. Have to meet admissib. requirements – or conviction could get challenged, reversed viii. Have to withstand adversarial system 6. Nat’l Databases Used in Evid. Gathering Process – comparisons done by for. examiner:
a. AFIS  allows comparison of latent prints w/ prints already in system – to get ID match b. CODIS  FBI system that allows comparison of DNA at c/s w/ DNA profiles stored in system c. NIBIS  used f/ ballistic imaging; digital images of bullet, cart. case, etc is compared w/ items stored in system 7. Forensic Pathology – discipline used in determin. of: (1) cause (e.g., tire iron); (2) manner (e.g., homicide, suicide); & (3) mechanism of death (e.g., exsanguination) a. important f/ determin. personality & other personal features of the perp. b. Coroner = elected; no req’m of med. trng. VS. pathologist = appt’d; med. trng. Req’d 8. Forensic Biology – involves (1) body fluid identific (blood, semen, saliva) & (2) DNA analysis (shows only nuclear structure, not type of liquid  req’r body fluid test a. Presumptive Test (Melendez Diaz case) – shows presence of a fluid that can be found in multiple items; not reliable and can result in false positive i. Negative results = lack of drug but positive result = possible presence of drug b. Confirmatory Test – determin. of presence of specific fluid type 3

Document Scene a./pkg. if firearm recovered  e-TRACE used to track sale of it from maker to 1st retail purchaser 4 . b. Integrity of evid. any signs of activity iii. at c/s ii.done via serial # or agent’s initials & date found b. of discharged bullet indicates where perp & victim were loc. Identification of Fungible Items –can be ID’d b/c it appears in same condit. condit. Must arrive promptly  to preserve chain of custody of phys. marker should be placed to notify others i. & to prevent unauth. a. lifting i. is found.CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION & INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES 9. windows. d. Collection & Preservation of Evidence on Scene a. evid. Use of paper (not plastic) bags – to cover. in c/s & how to handle witnesses ii. Preserving Condit. of doors. entry c. Identification of Singular Objects . fire personnel notes should incl. Ctrl Persons on Scene: ensure evid. presence of any odors. – involves proper storage. kept separate from other items to avoid contamin. EMS..g. anything altered by police. preserved evid./ adulteration 11. before scene stabilized. CSI Principle: Receipt of Info/Initial Response: arriving ofc. as when encountered c. moving. important b/c time b/w finding & analysis can alter nature of evid. loc. Where evid. Conduct Scene Assessment & Protect C/S: from arrival of 1st ofc. important b/c perps leave evid. C/S Search  Chain of custody: vital to maint.: anything essential about suspect & victim. departure from scene) notes should incl. rope off c/s & all surrounding areas that may yield evid. until c/s released from custody i. 10. bullet impressions lodged in structure’s materials ii. mental/written notes should be made: • • • at significant times (arrival. must know how to oper. E.

2) psychological autopsy. employment & school records. Wound pattern analysis o Should be done at both c/s & autopsy o ?’s to answer: 1) could deceased have caused own injury. d. Determining most probably sequence of events. date functions iii. Condit.g. Record overview of scene & then close-up. of scene should remain unaltered thruout documentation iv. 1st Step in C/S Reconst. @ Scene  creates petri dish & everything rots Setting up homicide c/s: remember to leave gunshot residue in victim’s dominant hand Reconstruction Protocols/ Steps – 1.characterized by 4 methods: 1) profiling.  detectives do walk-through of c/s. hospital & treatment. Photos: v. range photos to show relationships b/w key evid. Sketches: to show overhead view of c/s vi. Videotape: use videotape recorder w/ time. Victim state of mind & mental health o Study police. c. Begin w/ wide angle photos of c/s & surrounding areas.    Reconstruction done by: detectives. Examine what is overhead & loc. of evid. a. simulating events mentally that might’ve happened in order to prove or disprove sequences of events. Then shoot med. Then shoot close-ups of key evid.. ii. blood splatters and bullet holes). Take notes of what’s being photographed & shown in each photo e. using ruler to mark size of relevant items on scene iv. interview ppl about victim’s bkgr 5 . Equivocal death analysis (EDA) –used w ref. profilers MUST Use Paper Not Plastic Bag to Cover / Preserve Evid. or equivocal death analysis. capturing layout of c/s & relative loc. Profiling – method of c/s reconstruction involving linkage analysis or signature analysis b. 2) did deceased know the methods of death 2. iii. investigators. to mode/manner of death vii. of evidence (e. criminalists. structures – so they can be accurately reflected (to scale) in the sketch C/S reconstruction . Use tape measure to measure distances b/w objects. Something is "equivocal"(vague /unclear) when conclusions can have diff’t interpretations d. Psychological autopsy – used to investigate suicide cases c.b.

• Step 5 – pursue most promising theories by doing proc. to commit the crime. Real evid.. of events w/ levels of certainty. testimony Demonstrative evid. about crime and perp o 1 of 4 possible conclusions about seq. level of evidentiary value of fact / (component) Terms Used in C/S Reconstruction • Modus Operandi “MO”– the behaviors perp took which were neces.g. reliability of stories told by each pty to crime & weigh stories against phys. Some other piece of evid. that speaks f/ itself / actual objects o But real evid. o Learned behavior that is dynamic (can chng. when toxicologist testifies that victim dies of lead poisoning & refer to chart of human body showing pathway the toxin traveled. witnesses to determ. or experiment. motive. and emot. evid. & interviewing victim. – evid. obtaining exemplar (comparison) samples from suspects • Step 4 – test your hypothesis by evaluating veracity. intention about victim’s role in their own death o Reconstruct timeline of events leading up to day of death  Evidentiary Value of Facts . & known rules that could interpret phys. over time) • Signature behaviors – behaviors committed by perps that serve psych. sudden happiness after l-t depression o Learn of reactions to victim’s death from any persons in any way assoc. evid. or demonstrative evid.# & kinds of facts deduced from reconstruction AND any ambiguity / doubt assoc. e. w/ facts  determ. that illustrates or helps explain oral testimony.. that needs to be demonstrated is neces to use demonstratives. w/ victim & question them about warning signs and who might’ve intended harm o Analyze victim’s goals / life plans  helps determ. that might prove or disprove a suspect is the perp. suspect • Step 3 – collect data by reviewing records.o Find out about interpersonal relationships o Look f/ classic warning signs of suicide  giving away stuff. evid. o Scientific evid. doesn’t rely on a witn. • Step 6 – draw concl. = demonstrative evid. needs Scientific Method of Reconstruction • Step 1 – state the question to be answered by looking at type of crime committed • Step 2 – form hypothesis by: analyzing phys. event. – evid. 2 most certain are: 1) that it can be shown to have occurred in given manner and (on other end of spectrum) 2) it cannot be show to have occurred in given manner RULES ON DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE Almost anything “visual” from c/s can be presented as a visual exhibit in court (under certain rules) • • • Visual exhibits – either real evid. like recreating tangible item. 6 .

expert witn. scientific tests Foundational req’m f/ presenting demonstratives & scientific expertise . computer simulations (projection of possible outcomes predicted using computer algorithm)  must be shown that simulation based on accepted principles of physics 7 . police composites. Very important whenever comparisons (such as 2 writing samples) are made. can be compared by lay persons. principal value and effect of evidence on jury  autopsy pic/ other staged photo could be argued as more prejudicial than probative even if accurately depicts subj. ethical. enh. scale models. (e. appearance or condit. or testimony illustrated. charts. photo w/ some small section enlarged to focus in on something is likely inadmissible).g.. is legit. mug shots/photos. to testify using enlarged pic of bootprint outline w/ unique mfg’r mark Victim must ID that mark as the one that boot-stomped her.. maps.g. chng. videotape. and isn’t presented simply to “educate the jury” • Competency – that it is something that fits a court decorum. comp.g. (e.requires ‘laying foundation’ • Authentication  subj of demonstrative may not alter.: molds. pic to make c/s look lighter = inadmissible) • Representational accuracy  demonstrative must fairly depict scale. etc  must also pass test of probative vs. diagrams.. of something significantly (e. microscopic enlargement. pt. question of guilt/innocence. is easily understandable. materiality. destroy.g. and doesn’t taint the court or subvert judicial process. of law. computer reconstruction.o o o Common types of demonstrative evid. • Identification  demonstratives must be exact match to underlying evid. • Materiality – that it goes directly to purpose of illustration. competency. so evid. • Relevancy – demonstrative must make ref. sketches. dimensions. to chrg. prejudicial (inflames passions/prejudices of jury)  consider the intent.)  Cannot be stipulated Demonstratives must pass 3 hurdles of admissibility: relevancy. etc of underlying evid. • Compliant w/ generally accepted standard (Frye Test) – e. matter.

8 .

may not destroy/hide evid. bone marrow. proceeds to test evid. If atty.If only hair shaft can be analyzed  can obtain mtDNA (“mother’s DNA”. DNA Evid. hair root.DIFF’T TYPES OF EVIDENCE 1. b.(blood of victim or susp. as contributors (either major or minor contributor) i. from IEDs: a. gum. has been handled. from hat = DNA.DNA off of clothing 7. steering wheels b. tooth pulp. tissue 3. Evid. . can be found on device components. Some state laws req’r atty. Touch DNA – DNA left behind after an obj. (2) if human or animal. Hair recovered from tape on an IED  DNA analysis of hair root to obtain nucl. saliva. urine. time pd. DNA. (take evid. from cops. atty. DNA evid.g. Hair evid. by may hold item f/ reas. a. Perspiration/ skin cells . b.  where can it be found?  Blood. semen. (6) if suitable f/ comparison 9 .. DNA from guns: presents special pblm b/c many ppl may have handled a gun & mixtures are common 9. E. (5) if trace of dmg. envelopes 6. Saliva evid. Blood evid. Trace evid. Surface texture & length of time passed since handling  effect DNA results 8. provides low copy DNA a. (4) area of body the hair is from. using stains) 5. to preserve evid. hair b. f/ testing a. guns. Retaining Evid: Def. who/what deposited it a. from c/s is collected to determ. all siblings have same mtDNA) 4.(cans/bottles/cups.  must instruct examiner to not use entire sample OR aliquot the evid. vaginal fluid. or cosmetic treatm. lip balm. destr. apart to allow opp’y f/ future testing) 2. (3) perp’s race. chewed food/traces on toothpick. Of evid. or be held in breach of state’s practice/ethics rules or guilty of crim. disease. If complex/degraded mixture sample  many persons could be incl. . – exam can determ: (1) if it’s hair.: evid. Cannot tell when DNA sample deposited on the evid. Limitations of DNA Evid. cigarette butts. door knobs/handles.

by line cracks from bullet holes b/c crack doesn’t cross another crack line already present. DNA testing. thickness. shooter’s height & other phys features 14. Footwear / Tire Track Evid. thru color. b/c you can assoc. or excl. but some flies back onto person applying force & later can be found on the suspect/clothing/shoes c. f/ comparison a. E. chem composition. compound that explodes certain amt. detail: suffic. hair w/ a partic. most flies in direction of appl. (2) chromatographic methods. doesn’t imply pulling iii.:   can incl. micro prop’s i. device having chem. item of evid. or make positive ID i. determ. things to actual ppl. If Q impression has suffic. that can be compared w/ ref.. also can assoc. Naturally shed root: suitable f/ mtDNA testing only 10. cut to determ. of time after handling 13.g.g. characteristics (scratches. If Q impression lacks suffic. disease presence… ii. Gunshot into glass: shot sequence can be determ. powder) but latent print req’r visualization 15. 12. Individualization of Friction Ridge Characteristics – present in latent prints 10 . person. indiv. Value of hair evid. composition a. Comparison of ImpressionsShoe/tire brand can be determ. items of evid. Comparison used to: eliminate actual person/item. E. Glass Evid. cuts. validity & reliability of instrument used to do test f/ test results to be admissible b. When glass breaks. Photographic/Video Image Comparison – comparing images depicting ppl. Patent & Latent Prints: [rolled ink] patent print can be ID’d w/o visualization (e. optical prop’s.: associative evid. 11. match b. Q & K carpet fibers – compare style. from Q (perp’s) impressions & then compared to K shoe/tire thru size and tread design i.): known as associative evid.g. deft. if both carpets made by same co. detail can only attest to similarity in class characteristics w/ K shoe/tire ii. Fibers (Nat’l or Synth. Pay special attn. to color. shape. by showing suspect didn’t commit crime Gives ability to closely assoc. Instrumental Analysis – consists of 3 categories of instrumentation: (1) microscopic methods. wear) can be ID’d to positively ID K’s shoes as having made Q impression  Dye pack – elect. force. (3) spectrographic methods a. categ of ppl that incl. Q (question) & K (known) fibers  can compare color. from diff’t loc. can be made w/ phys. it has same class characteristics as that in photo/video. Reverse Projection Photogrammetry – taking still of c/s from video & recreating c/s by placing items in it i. Use of RPP in robbery investigation: items/ppl in scene used to determ. a. items a. to shared presence of unique features 16. Positive assoc. “forcibly removed” root: suitable f/ mtDNA & nucl.i. Must estab. w/ suspect or their environment.

cart. Trajectory analysis. order evid. Shooting Scene Reconstruction  incl. case. Other Exams: function testing. Toolmark Exams – used to: (1) search f/ trace evid. Pblm of ID’ing w/ Mascara as Evid. ID’ing Owner of Eyelash/ Mascara: like head hair. only b.. Collection & Retention of F/R Impressions: i. do microscopic comparfson of toolmark w/ test mark from suspect’s tool. class characteristics of tool & type of action used. impression devices (rubber stamps). Step 2: exemplars requested from subj. Step 2: If suspect is unkown  prints searched in FBI’s db (IAFIS) 17. Identific. IBIS entry. of arms & ammo – indentify maker. test firing to determ. Step 1: obtain standards (collected writings such as DLs. caliber of wpn and shotshell components. target position and movements 11 . firing pin imporession. if partic. indented writing. (3) were ammo components fired from same arm b. Examinations Performed: handwriting. of bullet maker. (6) nexus determinations f. (3) determ. Step 1: latent print must be found – dependent on type of surface (smooth/porous. case fired by the gun. (2) ID if cartridge came from partic. photocopies b. (5) determ. Trajectory Analysis Results may show  (1) where shooter/target was positioned. Comparison ?’s: (1) was bullet/ cart. (2) determ. ejector & chamber marks e. loc. if suspect tool is same class as tool that made toolmark. Cartridge Case Marks: analysis of breechface marks. Eyelash & Mascara Identification a. What can’t be done via arm/toolmark exam: (1) ID if fired bullet was loaded in partic. analytic tests . box/batch. Mascara – K sample can be compared Q sample belonging to suspect / victim by brand / type / color / consistency  Results provide circumstantial evid. a. etc) ii. (2) was cartridge/case loaded into / extracted from the gun/mag. 20. the more spread out the stippling c. (2) whether shooter/target was moving. Labs capable of: determ. distance determination [based on GSR] – further away shooter is from subj matter. characteristics (i. i. Evid. technical on-scene assistance (inv. etc) ii. of shooters. 18. Bullet Comparisons: comparison of test fired bullet w/ one recovered from victim d. (4) determ. Handwriting Comparison: i. was fired.trajectory analysis & ejection pattern testing AND Scenario of events – shooter. eyelash is an identifiable piece of trace evid.e marks) f/ comparison i. operability i. typewriting.: cannot ID user of mascara w/ certainty b/c only presumptive test can be done & mascara doesn’t yield specific result. (3) no. (3) ID indiv. cancel checks. Firearm & Toolmark Examinations incl.a. (4) order of shots (maybe) g. (3) perf. tool used. fracture matching to arms/tools. bullet lead analysis. inter-comparison of toomarks from diff’t scenes or cases 19. Forensic Document Examination a. c/s reconstruction). restoring obliterated markings & serial nums. ID of tools/toolmarks. model. extractor.

If nothing left behind. which sometimes cannot be produced a. but wpn gen. In Ted Binion murder trial. Effect – jurors geared to anticipate that mystery would be solved by Quincy.S. Effect – currently. Quincy M. Proof of C.  HOLLYWEIRDS – FORENSIC SCIENCE ON THE SILVER SCREEN Forensic sci. Effect b/c lack of print evid = lack of guilt is contrary to sci.  Acquittal attrib. testified she saw D shoot her father  Jury acquitted due to insuffic.E. of absence” Contrary to Locard’s Principle – perp. Trial of R. crime had to leave something behind. to   failure to find defts’ prints on Xanax bottle near Binion’s body botched c/s investig. old eyewitn. dismembering. iii. often misrepresented in movies/TV shows  diminishes value of foren.I.S. victim’s fluids could be on perp. iv. Perry Mason Effect – jurors instructed to expect full confession by deft. Durst where he admitted to killing. was interp. in rape situation.E. 11 yr. In last act b.a. EFFECT 1.I. 12 .I. perp would’ve taken something away from c/s  E. estim. c. maxim: “absence of evid. M. deprived scientist of trace evid neces.I. not suitable f/ retention of valuable prints. who cmtd. Lindbergh Kidnapping /murder – b/c no prints left at c/s  absence of trace evid. of deft’s prints on murder wpn. Of muzzle-to-target distance of gun & analysis of GSR particles ejected from gun barrel THE C. perp wore gloves   C. jurors typify public’s expectations w/ re to level of proof & expect hard forensic evid. where both defts were acquitted.  Impossible to determ race based on handwriting and prints.  acquitted due to CSI effect. is NOT evid. to resolve death ii.g. evid. verdict attrib. Effect: i. that suspect wasn’t there & can’t be guilty… Fails to consider possib. Distance Determination – incl. due to TV crime dramas. sci. C.S. to: Investigator’s failure to find victim’s head (perceived lack of proof) – said to have deprived deft of means to prove that he was innocent.S.

Drugs—  Tango & Cash  Stallone does Kojak test of white subst. to time. Serology—  Just Cause  M. but targets not hit. basis f/ failing to do further scientific tests.  Pulp Fiction  kid dicharges revolver at hit men. seq. that perp’s blood was O-Rh positive by testing teeth and gums. there must be equal & opposite reaction i.  Bullet holes in wall are beveled outward instead of inward  indic. ♦ Confession = inapprop. but shooter doesn’t recoil = viol. Paleo-anthropology – study of time when perspn/grp died Pathology 13 .  Neither saliva nor semen able to test for ABO blood type  Also admits she didn’t compare bite marks on victim to suspect’s dentition b/c he confessed. procaine = same reaction  TIME ISSUES INVOLVING EVIDENCE 1.e. Term “fresh wound” – doesn’t mean anything w/ ref. Blunders on Silver Screen*   K-19  nucl. 2.Time-data fingerprinting: non-scientific techn. when person occupied a loc. crime a. f/ determ. shots came from opposite side of wall from where shooting occurred  Tombstone   Doc Holliday shoots 3 rounds w/o reloading from 2-barreled shotgun (loaded w/ 1 round each)  Victims are shot & fly back. of events in commission of partic. NOT thermonuclear explosion  Firearms— Blue Steel  firing pin impressions . submarine & leaky cooling system would result in radiation leakage. out of box truch thinking it’s cocaine…  Kojak test would kill him if it were PCP / LSD  Even if it caused numbing after he put it on his tongue.E.visible as primers of cartridges loaded into  barrel for firing BUT  Firing pin impression visibility = indicates gun already fired. based on when they deposited prints there *Forensic Sci. Time is an important component in determ. of Newton 3rd law of motion  f/ every action. bullet that he carries around unprotected in his pocket. “recent wound” does. Bullet holes shown in wall behind target. shooter would also fall back  The Shootist  actor empties 6-shooter pistol into bartender but 6-shooter discharges 7 shots  Magnum Force  examiner says 2 bullets recovered from murder were shot at pt-blank range based on comparison to evid. this doesn’t prove its cocaine. claims she determ.

Youngblood: deft convicted of rape. 3. i. misidentification usu. Youngblood 1. 4. old victim. After SCOTUS’ reversal to state ct. Residue inside gun barrel: does not indicate approx. absent BF 2.. It was suspect that DeSalvo was the killer b/c fluorescents in head. preservation – see Arizona v. Compared w/ exemplar of DeSalvo relative’s DNA. sodomy after ID’d by 10 yr. Determining Time of Crime Using Toolmarks: a. state exhumed body over 20 yrs after muder. a. deft’s samples were tested against those taken from victim. i. nature of gunshot wound/size of knife used in murder. – Arizona v. w/ any degree of accuracy if gun was recently fired a. torches it and claims someone else did it 14 . family. exhumation b. There’s no DP viol. method to determ. time 3.+ unless comply w/ ARPA regs. Exhumation a. absent proof of malice Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evid.. No oblig. only as to novel evid. of state to find / preserve evid. in leaving evid. No Time Element in Firearm Testing: no known sci. diff’t DNA sequences in seminal fluid ID’s. Beckwith. Chest x-ray showed dispersed metallic partic. in resol. underpants indicated seminal fluid present. Problem w/ ABA Resol. allowed & admissible. Another possibility: someone engaged in necrophilia w/ #11 after DeSalvo raped & murdered 4. (warranting hearing) appl. a. time since firing. 1. Auto arson scam – car owner claims it was stolen. of admissib. Holmes Beating Dead Body: he was seen beating corpse w/ stick  to reveal visual differences b/w post-mortem & ante-mortem bruises 2. Two. Mandating Preservation of Biol. for-sci. Boston Strangler: victim #11 remains exhumed. Thus. Evid: no time limit & no sample size incl. Preservation of Evidence 1. To determ. Medgar Evers: His killer. would use similar wpn post-mortem  Time limits f/ evid. ARPA  cannot dig up archaeological remains aged 100 yrs. in chest  indicates shooter was near Evers when shooting. causing them to spread. only that it was fired after its last cleaning  could’ve been at any prev. convicted of murder in 80s even though acquitted in ‘60s. Known as billiard ball effect –> incoming bullet hit others pellets in body.. Persons generally not allowed to witn. pubic hair. non-novel evid. Expert testimony on eyewitn. unpreserved to self-destruct. revealing no match!! c. 3. Result: neither DNA matched DeSalvo or immed. Issue w/ Having Time Limit f/ Preservation of Evid. = held exempt 2. cannot tell distance of shooter from victim. Std.

Fingerprinting: cant determ.g. Access by insects – the greater the access. by est. but too many variables can occur preventing sound determin. time of death  determ.i. stepmother or father was killed 1st. faster than when buried/ wrapped 15 . Lizzie Borden murder case: unable to discern if mother. Location of body after death – remains touching ground decomp. Ins. had nosebleed causing a bloodstain on lab coat. (3) wound-aging based on wound color b. Tooth Wear  helps to determ. of write-off b.. Humidity – higher humidity  more insects  faster decomp. Tampering  heating ink done to determ. Comm v. of tetracycline = confirmation it belonged to her. that it was partic. Fluorescent rings  indicate antibiotic use. person’s age b.. Ink Testing to Determine Doc. Schroth 5. Circumst. Pathology – discipline used to est. can defeat claim – thru examining toolmark left by key (Locard’s Principle) – by showing last key in ignition was owner’s. Davis 8. E. tax fraud committed by changing date item was purchased  affects possib. Blood Hematology – variables in drying time of blood of diff’t persons makes it difficult to determine time a crime was committed (resulting in blood spillage) a. timeframe) vs. prints were placed. doesn’t match w/ callus (indic. (2) medicinal items could’ve altered victim’s blood viscosity. 1 or multiple inj. Prints. drying time by accelerating drying process. b.. Blood Drying Time Variables: (1) size of blood sample.e.)  injury not recent Estimating Time Elapsed Since Death: most important indicator = extent of tissue decomposition (i. relative aging. if age of bloodstain matches age of blood from knife wound. “Fresh print” pblm. Anthropology a. i. E. to be made 6. victim dead. “variability in decay rate is the rule” & several factors must be considered. Next morning. Pathology (Child Abuse) – look at post-fracture healing time: if time of inj. i. Blood found on counterfeit $: cannot determ. No way to determ. c. Access by carnivores / other animals – accelerates decomp. animals attracted to open wounds f. the faster the decomposition. victim punched. e. of death – remains w/ penetrating wounds decomp. rigor / livor / algor).g. c.g. Rohypnol = date rape drug w/ very short half-life  fails to show up in test even short time after use 9. Document Examination: a. Blood found was tested & showed evid. faster b/c insects. Difference exists b/w absolute (determin. Drugs a. State v. Stage of insect’s life cycle & species of insect found on remains (diff’t species invade at diff’t times) may indicate time elapsed. a. post-mortem interval 10. ii. Temperatute – colder temps decelerate decomp. 4. d. Costal cartilage (where ribs join sternum)  indicates aging when cartilage become evident due osteoarthritic changes c. if blood left before or after crime 7. Bloodstain Aging: e.

but that isn’t determ. Signif. if skeleton was rel. a. Entomology: what insects can tell as to time since death—stage in insect life cycle (adult. of wrongdoing but blood from other items could’ve transf. in civil cases – time elapsed b/w inj. post-mortem. Rigor mortis – a recognizable sign of death characterize by stiff limbs  caused by post-mortem chem. Occurs 20 min. wounds / inj. Rainfall . thru sci. Antibiotics deposited in bone  form osteon fluor. By deterring insect popul. Signif.g. Discoloration doesn’t occur in area of body in contact w/ ground/another obj. after death & congeals in capillaries in 4 – 5 hrs. proc. d. evid. larvae) & insect species (diff’t species invade remains at diff’t times) found on remains can indicate post-mortem time interval. Bone mineral analysis: Test to determ. change in muscle a. Livor mortis / post-mortem lividity – signified by purplish-red skin discoloration (from setting of blood in body’s lower portion) a. option triggered. Amt. affected by external factors. scrutiny c. is common . ii. in BP readings based on posture 1. pupae. in crim.connotes timeframe. Algor mortis – signified by lowering of body temp. i.  death sent. Blood w/ traces of osteon rings means blood owner took antibiotics. ATP production stops at death  no metabolic process post-mortem  muscle stiff & lock in place 2. Evaluation of what insect ingested: victim or suspect’s DNA likely present b. Result = no match! i. b/c it protects insect larvae from sun i. 5. Vitrius humor [in the eye]: concentration of potassium incr. scientifically b. Rings. evid. to Tilney. Jamestown Man: Skeletal mtDNA tested  determ. Clothing – accelerates decomp. to 3 hrs. c. POLYGRAPH 16 . to the K thing/place. Instantaneous Death: a. & resulting death affects dmg award (if & what can claim f/ pain & suffering i. of time must be determ.slows decomp. again 4. unless body moved postmortem  throws off insect activity i. Decomposition  rise in body temp. Issues w/ Reporting Presumptive Test – reporting thing/place + for blood trace causes specul. Reverse paternity test (thru mtDNA): If half-siblings had diff’t moms  DNA wouldn’t match ii. Soil ph – acidic soil accelerates decomp. if body was moved post-mortem 3. Presence / absence of livor mortis = means used to approx. post-mortem Hypostasis/sugillation – process of chng. cases – if jury finds death victim death not instantaneous & suffered aggrav. Use of “fresh” in for. whether J’town man & Tilney grew up in same loc. b. What Bones Can Tell (presumptive test): antibiotics traces in bone would serve as circumst. on remains h. time of death & to detern.

asset forfeiture cases (to ensure all fruits of crime seized). “Guilty Knowledge” Test – Qs incl. relevant-irrelev. Question (most common) Technique . Incr. b/w right & wrong./neutal ?s – should elicit normal truthf. ?s – should elicit probable but irrelev.compare responses to relev. prob. Procedure = Three Stage Test a. response to relevant questions about crime than from irrelevant / ctrl. CWs – state often gives immunity to CWs. pneumographs. question technique i. physiol.. doesn’t reveal guilt / innocence 4. Context: a. Galvanic skin response: detects sweating by measuring conductivity when sweating b. Key Characteristics of Poly Exam: (1) only yes / no answers. (3) only subj & examiner present. To assess suitability f/ examination (e. meds: i. Workings of Polygraph: psych. test. autonomic nervous system  triggers flight/fight syndrome e.g. must not be overly tired or on medication iii.) Qs vs. To develop relevant questions & focus subj. polys help ensure a CW isn’t mass murder (criminal) d. Lies 17 . Relevant-Irrelev. getting acquainted w/ technique iv. info only perp would know & ergo exh. responses from stress caused by fear of detection 7. Testifying co-defts. What’s Being Measured a. Suspects (e. irrelev.compares responses to 3 types of ?s:   Irrelev. (4) recording / taping allowed 3./neutal Qs  Problem: how do you ctrl f/ instances of truthful subj./parole events 5. To prime subj. Polygraph Uses – Crim. technique & tool used to measure involun. “Fear of Detection” Theory – poly exam operates on this theory whereby poly examiner infers deception from greater chng. Q Test . Clients f. rapport ii.1. questions 2. (incrim. Q test. To est. galvanometers 8.. response to  Problem: req’r examiner to know concealed info beforehand iii.g. Machine Parts Used in Monitoring: BP cuff. Deft– helps state to decide whether to proceed w/ case (e. deft took part in murder) c. Reactions Ctrl. respiration d. in physiol. on them b. Hanssen espionage case: poly used in plea deal to ID secrets given away) b. subj. (2) examination – incl. must know diff. Situations where evid. (2) all 3 question types in mixed order..g. Nations Bank robbery – poly used to determ. Ctrl. Used in debriefings.: incl. (1) pretest interview – general questions re: personal hx. Polygraph Uses in Employment: Private employers cannot req’r polys of employees 6. Polygraph Uses – Post-conviction: a. ctrl. heart rate & BP c. reacting nervously to relev Qs? ii. e. guilty knowl.

(1) examiner’s score. Admissibility a. re: responses indicated as false i. Any mention of poly – per se excl. 9. still has discretion over admitting evid. Three Possible Outcomes  (1) no deception indicated. Scoring – incl. (3) post-test – follow-up interrogation of subj. if subj. Ct. Defense Considerations a. not in custody so participation in test = voluntary. including federal) – polys inadmissible per se i. Per Se Exclusion (majority (27 states). (2) computerize score. Parties can stipulate to admissib. iii. nature of exam. f/ assessing qualifications of examiner) ii. Not permitted to testify whether subj. Examiner can elicit inconsistencies to use against subj. Effect = results can’t be excl. If inconclusive  further testing  “Trojan horse” – examiner gets opp’y to interrogate subj w/o counsel. but ii.  Relev. SCOTUS’s view: subj.so any confession would be admissible. (3) inconclusive 11. (3) QC score (3rd pty review & score) 12. Contracting anal sphincter  prevented by employing special chair 10. of poly evid.specific to subj matter about which info subj is concealing Problem: assumption that innocent subj. ?s . b. offered or refused to take poly c. no stds. ?s than guilty subj. Countermeasures a. by 2 fed cir. accepted under Frye (no empirical validation. Due to waiver of Miranda rights in post-test stage  def. Inflicting pain  can determ. If DI  further testing done w/ goal of admission / confession   Miranda waiver req’d . Do not volunteer client f/ poly w/o taking priv. c. should be careful of admissions client makes in post-t stage 18 . at trial. administered test 1st b. trying to beat test b. Admission upon stipulation (subst. minority) i. If NDI  test concluded ii. (2) deception indicated. subj. will react more to ctrl. Reason: not gen. 13.

case 19 . should be req’d f/ law enf. to engage in computer surveillance. U. v. Jones  Issue: whether consent req’d to track someone’s cell to obtain their geographic loc.S. Conn.COMPUTERS & FORENSIC SCIENCE  Issue: whether warr.

Sextortion – computer crime where ppl extorted w/ threats to publicize their nude images a. is a counterfeit computer OR houses illegal materials) b.1. owned item i.c. of privacy  ofc. If its instrumentality (used to commit) of crime 3. Use computers to: (1) commit crimes. indiv. 2. to accurately recreate 3D c/s incl evid. info 4. See U. Chinese investments. Website shut down by law enf.e. Diaz (Cal. If its evid. x-chng fraud – American stole investors $ under guise it was used to purch. explicit pics & extorted them thru blackmail (threatening to leak them online) Computer Privacy 1. req’d f/ search but if ii. Investment/ sec. v.) a. can be seized  should be based on FREs. of priv. Computer analysis of video surveillance pics: comp. 5. used to replicate police’s c/s sketches 4. info f/ cell phones a. expec.C.g. pgrm. To search closed. Computer  seen as closed container (i. search / seizure. need warr. See People v.g. Reasonable expec. prohibition on unlawf.. contains info on stolen bank accts. of crime (e. or p. Equipment.S. was convicted. a. Fraud – see U. lose disc drive. disc drive)  warr. Cyber bullying – computer forensics used to prove crime 6. faraday bags – block reception – income calls to allow techs to analyze info on phone c. Mijangos: hacker hacked in computers of young women to loc. Container becomes open (e. If there’s reas. Piracy & Infringement – see Ninja video case: videos/movies sold online  constituted piracy & infringement. To see email content  must get “content warrant” per Title III of Wiretap Act 2. v. (3) display evid.) c. use file on public netw) expec. req’d to search smartphone  dependent on j/d.g. einstein sensors – used by govt to filer public emails 3. used by police to ID similarities among pics (e. & operator convicted of conspiracy. Commission of Computer Crimes 2.c.S. (2) solve crimes. ID Theft & C. same item of clothing susp. When comp. of privacy – that persons shall be secure in their persons & effects… a. Pen/Trap statute: permit govt. Perez: perp convicted of running online bsns that sold counterfeit c. If its contraband (e. Implicates 4th Am. Whether warr. C/S Diagrams – comp. wears is worn by perp seen on video 20 . to set up pen register / trace device to get addressing info of online communications like addr. but later $ would disappear 7. 3. Computer counterfeiting – see U. Zhao: deft sold counterfeit cisco netw.g.’s encoded w/ stolen acct.S. field tablets – instantly allow police to obtain all info on smartphone b. lost Solving Crimes w/ Computers 1. Total station mapping – techn uses lasers to measure distance. v. items 5.

& db = questionable method b/c for-sci. used comp. a. Acquitted. supporting defense. atty. UV & x-rays. TV. Forensic photography (100% digital) has 2 purposes: (1) document & preserve visible info. infrared radiation . evid. All other colors in b/w. should look f/ dissimilarities. not similarities  Comp. i. red)  X-rays can’t see thru bone b/c whole wavelength absorbed by it & no energy reflects 3. to change 4. Causes appearance of obj. and copied to a sheet that’s scanned into AIFIS  comp. Accused of ADW (knife).g. Def. Energy spectrum = what we see. Evid. lifted. a. to create picture evid. Computer Evid. manner of death: in Merriweather Lewis death. Energy (1) reflects. Applications: use of infrared plates together w/ filter to screen out all light reveals: erasures on docs. contains cosmic. iii. Forensic portraiture – e. 9. spectrum (incl. NOT likely… FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY 1. Murder case: deft. obliterated handwriting. Beyond violet = ultraviolent –invisible b. when all energy reflected  color is “white. ii. people in the dark 21 . What we can see  only w/in 300 nanometer spread. not neces.  UV ↔ infrared . Chain of Custody Issues  defense can discredit comp. blood stains & powder burns on cloth. Closest matches displayed a. etc. comp. White light – all colors of light combined. infrared. gamma. pgrm runs print against those in system & assigns score based on frequency of similarities. Allows us to see right beyond visible spectrum a. Infrared photography (at longwave end of spectrum (ranges in waves from red to violet)): uses a. Red = longest wave & violet = shortest wave. & (3) transmits i. many kinds of energy waves). showed anything could’ve caused CW’s wounds. i. Deft. mounted. animation used to recreate c/s showed that Lewis would’ve had to reload pistol after already shot in the head in order to shoot self in the chest. (2) reveal & document invisible / latent info that may be evid. (2) absorbs. To see beyond  must employ techn. Computer voice stress analyzer  generates images showing graphs w/ variable lines to connote deception 7. used to determ. mug shot 2. Exonerates in Att. due to chain of custody problems 8. Beyond red = infrared  waves even longer than red—invisible iv. deft’s knife. Humans can see only white light & colored light  very small part of EM spectrum. When portion of wavelength reflected  color is b/w black &white(e.most commonly used to see things we naturally can’t on either side of spectrum b. Use of Computers in Print Identification – after Q prints at c/s are dusted.6.part of electromag. Reflect: when no energy reflected back  color is “black”. Matching prints via comp. Computer evid.g. Nir-infrared reflectance – mech.

deft’s DP right to fair trial. comparison 1st: gen’l characteristics (both are cars). Marking items f/ Identific. unlike UV reflectance (causes invisible obj. against him/her   Disingenuous testimony – testimony lacking in candor. accurately portrays what it purp. c. evid. inflammatory or prejudicial: where relevance of photo outweighed by inflammatory character  inadmissible FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY RESULTS  American legal system stands f/ indiv. Bodily secretions: may glow when illuminated w/ UV rays iv. Failure to discl viol.: Comparison of photos showing Lincoln’s gun: scratches. 8. 6th Am. made in ct. exculpatory evid.energy & sensor are in diff’t places on spectrum. characteristics (both Caddys) a. must produce all material. ear pattern) to compare w/ K indiv. coat pockets) – will fluoresce under UV light ii. Is relevant and probative i. w/p DP of law  Brady v. 7. Fairly. 6. but not very helpful). big nose  possibilities narrowed only to all red-haird. 22 . giving off UV rays (invisible)  UV light rays hit visible portion of spectrum.: w/ invisible crayons that fluoresce under UV light Photographic Examinations – a side by side visual comparison of 2 photos. to show up in black). re: relevance: if a scientific techn. E. Est. Nir-infrared luminescence . ID’ing characteristics  the more specific the ID b. Mercury heats up. dings matched orig. of techn. man w/ red hair. not admissible  photos in supp. big-nosed men on earth. Ultraviolet (“black light”) luminescence – gives neon glow. gun Photogammetry – process of determ. which we see thru camera d. ID’ing characteristics: a. gives deft. not admissible c. the greater the # of indiv. geometric properties of objects from photos a. guarantees no depriv. as long as it: a. re: relevance: if fact is relevant  so is photo depicting that fact (and vice versa) ii. to subp. Is not overly prejudicial or inflammatory i. Light strikes it & converts UV to infrared. chipped tooth. liberty. – photo admissible as evid.g. Questioned documents: obliterated writings may show up under UV rays v. Most don’t show indiv characteristics (more important) (scars.g. rights  5th Am. square-jawed.5. w/ or w/o request from def. giving false appearance of something Perjury – absolute lie VS.. to portray b. square jaw. adding fluorescent powder on surfaces dusted f/ prints  prints may appear under UV light iii. shine black light in dark room  white shirt glows. Detect theft using UV powders (in cash boxes.& confront witn’s. of life. Distance  can’t be measured from photo Facial comparisons Using Photos: all show class characteristics (abundant. Maryland = *landmark case – affirms 5th Am*.g. E.  prosec. right to counsel. prop. Used to: i. relevant v.illustrated by looking at fuzzy pic of Mona Lisa Admissibility of Photo Evid. misleading stmt. E. Difference b/w recognition & identification:. followed by 2nd: indiv. so sensor can’t see infrared i.

testing  cannot be admitted into trial record. failure to oblige by scientific std. testimony is at prosec. evid in viol. concentration a partic.       Need for Defense Experts: (1) keep other side honest. evid. develop own testimony & have full discretion over decision to testify  Gov. Witn.  Difference b/w specificity & sensitivity:  Specificity – how specific a test f/ partic. to provide copy of results to prosec. After 810 half-lives.. convicted of murder even though dead body wasn’t his. of which would make trial “a quest f/ truth” rather than a “sporting event”. confuse jury /issues. level. test can pick up Qs Related to Test / Result Accuracy  From what site was blood sample drawn?  How was sample stored and processed?  How much time elapsed b/w sample drawing & analysis?  What is name & type of screening procedure used to assay the blood?  Was confirmatory testing performed? Which lab did the testing (accredited/(not)? 23 .Imbalance: e.g. v. prohibits prosec.  Def. – discl.. positive results but withheld confirmatory neg. witn. (3) ensure compliance w/ 6th Am. but fails to call police b/c high.  Pblm w/ Lab Reporting – reported prelim. While driving. discretion. (3) if drug killed user? Drug Testing / Results Issues  Presence / Excretion of Drugs: Takes 6 half-lives to get it below orig. U. (2) due to existing imbal. Witn. toxicologist asked: (1) if s/he was impaired. to test evid. When returns next day to get it. Using positive urine test to allege impairmt: disingenuous. who use  FBI’s svc. of Brady Investigative Resources . no such req’m f/ proec. job  find out what happened based on tox. more autonomy in putting evid. U. Turner Certificates of evid. Eventually exonerated. of exculp. Positive Urine Tests  not neces. (4) repeated instances of govt/( witn. In investigative resources. evid. constit.  Reason Taylor Railroaded & Convicted: Lab did only screen (prelim) test of DNA but claimed blood on body matched what was found in deft’s truck. misleading. & Def. He discovers dead body. Proves only prior exposure. case via ex parte out-of-ct. Prejudicial Toxicology Lab Results See State of NC v. many others.. Bryant. SCOTUS held: certificates of foren. boss has sovereign immunity Unethical.). certainty. analysis = testimonial (like affidavit) & 6th Am.S. (2) if drug caused / prox. confr. ingests cocktail of drugs 1 night.) withholding exculp.S. Deft leaves car at c/s unknowingly.  Unresolved question: whether everything done in lab is subj to 6th Am. he’s met by police & arrested.. presence = neglig. must sign agreem. that exculp. FBI’s Open Door policy: def. of transparency led to fales conviction in this case. Taylor  deft. Melendez Difference b/w Being Gov.what’s lowest limit of subst. deft.  Right at stake is deft’s discov. right trumps govt’s ‘over-burdensome’ argument. results (evid. witn. case together BUT no immunity unlike w/ gov witn. Then charged. proof of present impairment / cannot be shown w/ reas. Also did confirmatory test but couldn’t prove blood was human. scien. from proving crim. agent  Sensitivity . clause  Theoretically. v. prejudicial After blood / urine sample tested. car gets stuck in mud at c/s.. job  help build case f/ proece. cause of injury?. affidavits.

ability to ID bullet & match to gun is difficult  Gunshot wound A  penetrating (see p.  legit explanation f/ S-D would be suffic. trajectory of projectile  Cannot tell bullet caliber based on wound appearance (large / small. & ops. To do from distance)  “…looks more like an execution than something that happened during a struggle…”  examining /commenting on case not under one’s auspices = unethical (viol.: (1) Cause of Death = gunshot  wounds. must satisfy Daubert / Frye criteria  Completeness of review & Degree of certainty  only 51% degree of certainty req’d to be “scientifically reliable”  Bias. etc. advertising  Alternative possibilities considered  Pose hypothetical questions • QADDAFI DEATH  Forensic pathologist determines: (1) 2-4 bullet wounds in his head. financial gain.  Qualifications  Knowl. leaving abrasion on wound margin. to excl. (2) that they were fired at close range b/c wounds almost identical (which is diffic. Manner & Cause of Death Must be Determ. What is the specificity & sensitivity of the test?  Areas of Inquiry on Cross-Ex. of facts of case  Methods / tests used to arrive at concl. suspect Difference b/w “Homicide” & “Murder”: hom. sandwiched & crushed b/w outgoing bullet & unyielding object over exit site.  Proper cooptation of wound margin = impossible due to loss of skin (like what happens w/ entrance wounds) 24 . 424-25) Not possible Qaddafi committed suicide: b/c 4 bullets w/ 4 diff’t entrance wounds  found  Can someone shoot himself multiple times & survive? YES. (2) manner of death = could be homicide or natural death  inconclusive. distance needed b/w gun and victim to leave stippling marks (p. Therefore. ASSASSINATION OF HUEY LONG (see handout) Criticism of Varying Use of Nomenclature: Diff’t terminology used in forensic sci.)  Can tell from wound whether bullet recovered from body was slipped in after death  Exit wounds can appear like entrance wounds if: skin doesn’t fragment out as expected  Shored Exit Wounds: Shored. 3/6) Gunshot wound B  perforating Cause of death isn’t listed as “gunshot wound”…  must consider if there’s  preceding or contributing cause of death. of code of prof responsibility)  entrance wound shown =not clear & shows no signs of stippling -fragments of burnt & unburnt bullet  Can test to determ. gunshot exit wounds appear when outstretched skin is impaled. = killing of one by another BUT murder = intentional killing Entrance / Exit Wounds Appearance – helps determ.  disciplines  no clear understanding of what’s meant by descriptive terms Difference b/w “Perforating” & “Penetrating” Bullet Wounds:   Lead is soft & distorted upon hitting bone.

Fingerprint Basics (minutiae)     Ridge crossing Opposed bifurcation Ridge ending Lake (enclosure) Trifurcation Island (short ridge) Opposed bifurc. Print’s general shape  used to pre-process fingerprint images.Dr. Uniqueness of a print: can be determined by pattern of ridges and furrows as well as minutiae points  local ridge characteristics occurring at a ridge bifurcation / ridge ending./ridge ending Delta of rolled up finger Bifurcation  Hook (spur) bridge Double bifurcation dot Fingerprint Identification Points Single print may have 100+ ID points which can be used for identification purposes..  The General Shapes:  Loop  Whorl – most common type of fingerprint 25 . mm than area near fingertip Fingerprinting: Background Info   Fingerprinting was first created by British surgeon . and reduce searches in large db. There is no size requirement  the # of points found on print impression depend on print’s loc.FINGERPRINTS Fingerprint Identification Fingerprint-based identification is oldest method of all biometric techniques  Every person has unique. has more pts/ sq.  E.  A fingerprint consists of series of ridges and furrows on a finger surface. Henry Fault. area immediately around delta usu.g. signature proving their identity. immutable fingerprints – can be regarded as indiv.

Straightforward matching b/w Q fingerprint and K fingerprint is difficult due to high sensitivity to errors (e.  Print matching based on minutiae has problems in matching unregistered sizes of minutae patterns.      Arch Sub-categories of gen. finger deformation during scanning procedure). etc) can be ID’d  Minutae-based processing doesn’t take into account global pattern of ridges and furrows.  Minutiae-based techniques: find minutiae pts. Modern techniques .  minutiae extraction.  left loop. a core pattern & delta can’t be clearly seen. yielding  code for all prints  Correlation-based processing has separate set of limitations:  Correlation-based techniques require precise loc.  In many actual c/s.5% Fingerprint matching techniques Two categories of matching techniques: (1) minutae-based and (2) correlation based. then map their relative placement on the finger. prints are not very clear ♦ In some prints.(pnts where capillary lines have branches or ends) from fingerprint image. Also.30%  Arch -. of registration point  Also affected by image translation and rotation. Solution: find alternate representation of prints that captures more local info. damaged print areas. Fingerprint Processing  Minutiae-based processing problems:  In real life you would have impressions made at diff’t times & subject to diff’t pressure distortions. outside noises.  Single or double whorl  Plain or tented arch  Ulnar or radial loops  Representation of % of each type of print in human population:  Loop – 65%  Whorl -. and check matching b/w the sets of print features. A reliable fingerprint processing technique requires sophisticated algorithms f/ reliable processing of fingerprint image:  noise elimination.  Correlation-based technique: overcomes some difficulties of the minutiae-based approach. shapes:  right loop.  rotation and translation-tolerant print matching. palm. algorithms must be fast f/ comfortable use in apps w/ many users & must be able to fit into a microchip. foot impression. only latent print (could be a fingertip.  Local ridge structures not characterized only by minutiae. finger being placed in diff’t areas of print scanner window and at diff’t angles. Cannot rely on subjectivity to make identification! Progressive Fingerprint Matching 26 .focus on extracting minutiae pnts .g.

scarring.  Minutia relationships. removing extraneous artifacts & healing scars/cuts/breaks.. etc An automatic recognition of people based on prints requires that input fingerprint is matched w/ large number of prints in db  FBI database contains approximately 70 million fingerprints  Fingerprint Characteristics Biometric (Fingerprint Strengths)  Finger tip = most mature measure  Accepted reliability  High quality images  Small physical size  Low cost  Low False Acceptance Rate (FAR)  Small template (less than 500 bytes)  Biometric (Fingerprint weaknesses)  Requires careful enrollment  Potential high False Reject Rate (FRR) due to  Pressing too hard. providing critical placement. 27 . Extracted features matching template storage Match score Ap plication Authentication decision decision  Feature Detection for Matching Ridge ends and bifurcations (minutiae) w/in skeletal image are ID’d and encoded. gray tone impression. dirt  Vendor incompatibility  Cultural issues: e.  Each template has many info chunks.  Matching Fingerprint Search Fingerprint matcher compares data from inputted search print against all possible db records f/ possible matching print. Fingerprint Classification:  Large db’s of stored prints are used f/ many purposes: forensics. orientation and linkage info f/ print matching process. Perceived privacy issues with North America  Fingerprint Technology As fingerprint technology becomes more advanced.  General Model for Fingerprint Authentication Data co llection Raw d ata Signal proc. misalignment. technology options also increase—  Optical – finger scanned on platen (glass.g. access ctrl. one to another are compared. plastic or coasted glass/plastic). improving smudges.Image Processing – capture fingerprint images & process thru series of image processing algorithms f/ clear skeletal image of orig. DL registration. each representing a minutia and comprising a site. a minutia slant and a neighborhood.

of ID = NOT neces. bullet. for Identification  est. of similarity = suffic. RULE that min. Ultrasound – requires large scanning device  appealing b/c it can better permeate dirt. loops. Should have familiar statistical base. (2) exclusion.Silicon – uses silicon chip to read capacitance value of fingerprint. Fingerprint ID sustem  ACEV (analysis of crime scene & exemplar-comparison-eval-verification): techn. Fingerprint info system  IFIS: integr. Arches. to reasonable degree of ballistic certainty) Firearms VS Ballistics Fingerprint Identification:    Firearms IDing: determining caliber. (3) inconclusive. bullet track used vs. degree of probability to which examiner testified (e. # of pts. for Identification IAFI: Int’l Org. to  make ID Cannot rely on subjectivity to make identification! Problem: identifier’s experience  cannot be challenged b/c cannot prove that identifier’s subjective opinion is false  Individual objectivity should be pt.  Acronyms  AFIS: autom. preceding challenges to printing in 1980s. about which identification turns.)  Showing of 12 pts. by successfully eliminatin. (4) of no value (not common finding – lacks specificity)  Probabilistic Statements & Challenges: frequently attacked in ct.  SWGFAST: Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis.1% 28 .  Four Possible Fingerprint ID Findings: (1) inclusion. (2) when exposed to chemicals  Familial Sharing of Fingerprints: siblings share some features of DNA. Study and Technique  Int’l Assoc. to show identical print  Fingerprints are “impermanent” b/c of: (1) natural wear.  Ballistics IDing: determining motion that firearm imparted on bullet  Latent vs.g. whorls = shared features. but minutiae) = not shared & used to make  Error Rate: false positive = only 0. ink prints: latent print ID’ing is tougher b/c print is messier than more clear ink print Can have many points of similarity b/w exemplar & lifted print: up to 150  (est.

hair damage. body area (head. presence of pigment. eyebrow). color  Cortex  Pigment granules: organization. shape  Additional characteristics compared microscopically  Tip (distal end). damage.  Association result reported as such: Q hair exhibits same microscopic characteristics as hairs in known hair sample  the Q hair is consistent w/ originating from same source as K sample. diameter of hair. public. association  Exclusion: can definitively make positive exclusion based on hair evidence  Just because hair isn't the Ds doesn’t mean he didn’t do it  No conclusion: possibility that it’s suspect’s hair but they can’t exclude OR include  Association .that it could’ve come from D OR from anybody else w/ same characteristics and because they don’t know how many people exhibit those characteristics. naturally shed  Forcible removed root. no conclusion. density.contains cells from which to extract nuclear /mitochondrial DNA  Naturally shed . length. lab scientists may not testify so as to mislead jury OR allow jury to be misled  Why ‘Association Result’ is Problematic: • How do you explain this in court? 29 .MICROSCOPIC HAIR COMPARISON  Morphological parts of hair – cuticle. size. they can’t give a probability. human or animal. medulla  Difference between: forcibly removed hair vs.e. artificial treatment. cortex. Merely includes D in a realm of possibilities. size. phase of growth  Hair comparison uses pattern recognition  To see if similar patterns of microscopic characteristics exist at each pt along the hair in both Q & K hair  K hair exemplars: composite of representative hairs from target region of the body  Other characteristics observed and compared:  Cuticle Thickness. variation of thickness. distribution  Cortical fusi  Ovoid bodies  Cortical cell: texture. limb. racial group. diseases or other abnormalities  No 2 hairs. • Report must qualify: expert’s opinion and say its not a means of individualization • Misleading Terms: hairs match / hairs are consistent = overvalues probative val. of evid o Accred. even from the same person looks alike  intra and inter person variability  3 possible conclusions: exclusion. chest.Mitochondrial? Hair comparison = not a means of individualization  NOT a one-to-one comparison of one Q hair to one K hair  Several hairs tested to see if range of characteristics in Q hair appear in K hair  Involves subject part & objective part  Microscopic comparison involves categorization into smaller groups: i.

CA. that have to be applied.This characterization can lead to miscarriage of justice Hair is most commonly found trace evid when a crime that concerns contact b/w 2 people  Modern use of hair comparisons  Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA testing  Nuclear DNA gives  same range of probably as real DNA (e.  Daubert replaces Frye in all federal courts  State cts. 702: must ensure that expert testimony = relevant (will assist trier of fact) & methodology underlying testimony = scientifically reliable  Validity (of underlying scientific data) & reliability (theory is reproducible in technique employed & comes up w/ same result under same circumstances) o judge decides and is the gatekeeper on admissibility of scientific evidence  Validity and reliability + relevancy = evidentiary reliability o Daubert std. = more liberal than Frye  Criticism of Daubert: putting scientific issues in hands of judges who don’t have bkgr. of admissibility or does Rule 702?  SCT Holding: R.: 2 LEADING JUDICIAL TESTS  1. Replaces Frye in all fed. Frye v US. cts.did microscopic hair comparison & studies to estab probabilities  Hair comparison and false IDs  played a role in number of exonerations  ACE-V  now used in hair comparison like w/ fingerprinting ADMISSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVID.  Barry Gaudet-Royal Canada Mountie -. to warn witness & prosec. – have adopted Daubert std. decisions • This wasn’t in the case. NY. 509 US 579 (1993) (civil case)  Issue: in federal court. 1013 (1923) (DC Circuit)  General acceptance (counting noses)  If particular technique has general scientific acceptance in the community to which it belongs  Did those in the field using technique believe it was valid?  Frye inquiry applies only to novel scientific techniques -accord. to subseq. sperm)  mtDNA  is not individual trait  probabilities are much lower with mtDNA • If microscopic hair comparison & mtDNA results each match  much higher probability that they came from same person  Take Caution Not to Overvalue Results of Hair Comparison  file motion in limine asking ct. MI. ct. TX  employ Frye test or combo of Frye & Daubert factors  Daubert  only applicable in civil cases 30 • • .  DC. but subsequent writing says it only applies to novel  2. not to overvalue conclusion and not use terms like “match” and “consistent w/” b/c match must be of range or characteristics. that follow fed. FL. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm.g.  Per R. 702 applies & new set of standards est. 293 F. does Frye control evidentiary std. rules of evid.

technical AND any specialized knowledge (e.) • Others in sci. and outweigh prejudicial impact  Clarification: does Daubert only apply to scientific disciplines?  it applies to scientific. protocol. community have opp’y to comment on validity and reliability  (3) Known or potential error rate • Controversial  what is an error rate? How do you determine the error rate?  (4) Maintenance of standards controlling the testing  (5) Generally accepted within the scientific community  Daubert: not a new approach -. handwriting examination  technical in nature. not a science) Kumho tire co. (second opinion)  If accredited lab. Daubert factors  (1) testable hypothesis  (2) Subjected to peer review and publication (scientific journal. etc. your expert should be able to review record and tell you if you have credible chance at challenging it  Quality manager and manual – makes sure quality standards are in place in lab  Quality manual with code of prof responsibility.g. Carmichael • After kumho: doesn’t matter if technical or scientific expertise  all controlled by Daubert  Kumho – Daubert factors aren’t a definitive checklist b/c it’s a flexible inquiry  Daubert has made it more difficult for lawyers and judges   Requires scientists to be educators  Forces scientists to validate underlying science and procedure  Lawyers are req’d to qualify expert and science/ technique Admissibility of expert opinions  govern by FRE 702  Sufficient facts and data  Testimony is product of reliable principles and methods  Witness has applied principles and methods reliably to facts of the case  Objections to Admissib. v. law review.consistent with fed rule of evidence approach  Evidence must be relevant and probative. you first have to validate the variation and have to explain in case record why you did it 31 . of Expert Opinions  most successful attacks are how technique was applied in particular case LABS & FORENSIC TESTING  Protocols to Minimize Lab Errors:  Technical reviews – review entire file f/ presence or absence of scientific basis f/ examiner’s concl. techniques for instruments.  Testing protocols – tests should be done via validated & same method each time  If you have to divert from that because of usual nature of evidence.

 If you get additional info.surrogate testimony doesn’t meet constitutional standards FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY  Skull = cranium + mandible. proced. = inadmissible  Verification process was NOT blind & subj. and exams by others to prevent bias Tripartite nature of forensic science – lab work. but… 32 . report of lab work. NM . says can you compare this K and Q. it might make you want to find a match (e. we think this guy raped a little girl)  Solution: Some labs have evid. ctrl staff who manages evid. during trial and (voir dire)  Bullcoming v.          Proficiency testing – not really a way to determine an error rate. by not taking contemporaneous bench notes  Evid. Requirement: every analyst must be reviewed in court or testimony must be reviewed yearly What might trigger a Daubert hearing?  Complexity of scientific evidence  Uniqueness of scientific evidence  Extent of individualization  Significance of evidence to case  Need for discovery  Consumption of evidence  Rules of evidence don’t apply  don’t need to bring qualified experts  Daubert hearing might be held during pretrial. to “confirmation bias” (not part of manual)  Knowl.g. ofc. and testimony Single Accred. but it can be argued that it’s probative of an examiner’s competency  lab accreditation usually has all of these criteria Lab accreditation can affect quality of examinations  Lab accreditation gives range of benefits  Lab need not be accredited in order to maint. of prior examiner’s opinion  bias in current examiner’s opinion Cognitive bias – how you are affected by things in your environment or things that you know Context bias – when you look at something and are influenced by context in which you find yourself w/ that evid. proficient testing & results Error rate:  Verification  Certification – applied to individuals (accreditation applies to labs)  Professional responsibility (ethics) and training  Existence and maintenance of standard controlling the tests  Witness has applied principles and methods reliable to facts of case forensic scientists aren’t covered by uniform code of professional responsibility NH v Langill (2007) expert witness violated own lab’s oper.

etc. manabrium . feet D) # of Bones in Vertical Column: 33 vertebrae. Reason f/ difference: some bones fuse in adulthood **dbl teeth  important IDing feature C) Bone (osseous) tissue is of 2 types: 1) 80’% of bone tissue = cortical / compact bone  exterior. # of ankle (tarsals) bones: 7 c. E) Diseases of the Bone 1) Osteogenesis imperfect (brittle bone disease) – genetic disorder relevant in child abuse cases 2) Harris lines (transverse) . F) Types of Bones: a. 4 coccygeal a. Short bones (sternum. 6 sacral. upper part of sternum. cultural and otherwise C) Phys. tarsals) e.found on long bones near growth plate.holes in bones f/ transmit of nerves or blood vessels 8) Phalanges – bones of hands. 7 cervical (#1  the “atlas)’ 12 thoracic. pubis. anthropologist becomes forensic anth. Cranium = cranium w/o mandible I. G) Bone Size 3) Largest bone = femur 4) Auditory ossicles = smallest H) Bone characteristic: remodeling but not teeth?? I) Sutures Lines of the Skull: fusion (ossification) – epiphysis occurs from inside (endocranially) – out (ectocranially) a. Paired bones – long bones. Unique bones – radii – ulnae (chng position) f. makes up bulk of interior of bones 3) Adult – subadult 4) Cranial – postcranial 5) Distal – proximal 6) Anterior – posterior (front and rear) 7) Foramen . hard surface.broad. Irregular bones (carpals. Coronal – divides front from rear c. innominates – 3 that circle pelvic region: ilium. Long bones (femora. when dealing w/ bone matters’ II. Sagittal – divises right from left b. 5 lumbar. Lambdoidal – in rear of skull 33 . Radius and ulnar = only 2 bones in body that chng. ischium) d. # of wrist (carpals) bones: 8 b. often mistaken on x-ray as bone fracturing but is actually indicative of malnutrition during developmental years. tibiae) b. how you can tell if it’s man or woman) c. Flat bones (scapulaw. BONES A) # of bones in human body: 206-210 B) # of bones in child’s formative years: up to 300 a. TERMINOLOGY A) Osteology – breanch of anatomy that studies skeletal structure and function B) Anthropology – study of humankind. location when you twist arm into ‘gift pose’ g. in layers 2) Trabecular or cancellous bone = spongy bone  interior.

(3) supra-orbital (brow) ridge. (gums folded over?) 2) Sharp. Native Am. a. negroid.e. (2) mastoid process (behind ear). dental condit. no grinding ‘molar type’ teeth in back  indicative of non-human dentition i. herbivore 3) Determination of time since death (postmortem interval): a. pointy. 3. from occupational stresses. teeth or lack thereof  indicative of one’s lifestyle 4) Determination of race of remains: Racial types: a. bone color b. above collar) prominence  skull features a. involved JESSE JAMES CORPSE EXCAVATION  People are buried in supine fashion. overuse leaves marks/gouges caused by inward expansion of muscle wearing on bone) a. can be used to tell physical stressors during life 2) **bone wear** – important in IDing.g. arthritic lipping of vertebrae K) determination of sex or one’s remains  3 markers: (1) public area. c. cutting teeth. b.d. Caucasian (incl. Mongoloid (incl.forehead 2) Occipital bone (1) – rear of skull 3) Parietal bone (1) – top and side of skill 4) Temporal bone (1) = over right and left ears 5) Sphenoid (2) = in front of temporal bones 6) Calvarium = dome of skull. 2. w/ a body and left & right wing. (4) nuchal ridge (back of head. arthritic chng in 2rd coastal (rib) cartilage c. on their back (b/c it’s believed that buried bodies will rise during 2nd coming and would rise w/ head toward west side & feet on east side.not likely to be admissible in ct.) L) Estimation of stature of person during life  can tell from long bone measurements M) Bones of the Skull: 1) Frontal bone (1) . degenerative changes 3) Photographic superimposition 4) Facial reconstruction . Hispanics) is controversial classification 1st enunciated in 1775 by Blumenbach. so dead would be able to view 2nd coming from east)  Start digging at feet end to avoid doing damage @ head end 34 . due to much subj. separated at autopsy 7) **Hyoid bone** . May or may not fracture during manual or ligature strangulation N) Issues in Skeletal Identification 1) is the specimen bone? Plastic after fire (garden hose) 2) is the bone of human origin? Child’s hand or bear paws? 3) is the bone of such an age to be of forensic significance? 4) Warping of bone after death O) Individual Features 1) bone trauma (e. 1. Squamosal – over right and left ears J) General or Class Characteristics 1) Determination of age of person @ death: look at cranial suture epiphysis. interp. look at skeletonization.horse-shoe shaped bone lying at base of tongue. general standard: male = robust vs female = gracile b.

if human  Gold teeth . IF JUST ONE DISSIMILARITY NOTED IN COMPARISON OF FINGERPRINTS IT WOULD BE ASSUMED PRINTS WERE MADE BY DIFFERENT FINGERS. AND SCARRING. Labs have DNA of all employees in lab so if unknown profile appears. they can run employees’ DNA to be sure it isn’t a spurious profile  Trace evidence  Hair examined to determ. DOCTRINE HAS NOT BEEN STRICTLY FOLLOWED THROUGH THE YEARS BUT IS BEGINNING TO BE PRONOUNCED ONCE AGAIN BY COURTS. 35 . don’t testify to the % of certainty to billions. UNEVEN INKING WHEN TAKING PRINTS.  DNA only can give 99.kept for DNA analysis  FBI testify they are certain the person/evid.7% certainty ONE-DISSIMILARITY DOCTRINE  FIRST ENUNCIATED IN 1904. could be of no one else. REASONS FOR A SINGLE DISSIMILARITY INCLUDE: DUST OR DIRT ON FINGER AT THE TIME PRINT WAS MADE. SLIPPAGE DURING PRINT-TAKING.