December 2022 – Page 288 – Homework Handlers

Case Study: Using the Internet and Chapter 1 of your text, research the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

1.Case Summary

In a narrative format, discuss the key facts and critical issues presented in the case.

2.Case Analysis

Based on your research, determine who you believe the killer to be and why. Give at least five reasons/factors (physical evidence) to support your conclusion.

3.Executive Decisions

As lead investigator in the case, you would need to hold a debriefing with your detectives. List what they did correct and any mistakes that were made. What should be done to ensure the mistakes are not repeated in the future?

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Criminalistics An Introduction to Forensic Science

edition 11> > > > > > > > > > > >

Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montréal Toronto

Delhi Mexico City São Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

Richard Saferstein, Ph.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

After studying this chapter you should be able to: Define and distinguish forensic science and criminalistics

Recognize the major contributors to the development of forensic science

Account for the rapid growth of forensic laboratories in the past forty years

Describe the services of a typical comprehensive crime labora- tory in the criminal justice system

Compare and contrast the Frye and Daubert decisions relating to the admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom

Explain the role and responsibilities of the expert witness

Understand what specialized forensic services, aside from the crime laboratory, are generally available to law enforcement personnel

introduction

expert witness Locard’s exchange

principle scientific method

KEY TERMS

chapter 1

Le ar

n in

g O

b je

ct iv

e s

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

4 CHAPTER 1

Definition and Scope of Forensic Science Forensic science in its broadest definition is the application of science to law. As our society has grown more complex, it has become more dependent on rules of law to regulate the activities of its members. Forensic science applies the knowledge and technology of science to the definition and enforcement of such laws.

Each year, as government finds it increasingly necessary to regulate the activities that most intimately influence our daily lives, science merges more closely with civil and criminal law. Consider, for example, the laws and agencies that regulate the quality of our food, the nature and potency of drugs, the extent of automobile emissions, the kind of fuel oil we burn, the purity of our drinking water, and the pesticides we use on our crops and plants. It would be difficult to conceive of a food or drug regulation or environmental protection act that could be effectively monitored and enforced without the assistance of scientific technology and the skill of the sci- entific community.

Laws are continually being broadened and revised to counter the alarming increase in crime rates. In response to public concern, law enforcement agencies have expanded their patrol and investigative functions, hoping to stem the rising tide of crime. At the same time, they are look- ing more to the scientific community for advice and technical support for their efforts. Can the technology that put astronauts on the moon, split the atom, and eradicated most dreaded diseases be enlisted in this critical battle?

Unfortunately, science cannot offer final and authoritative solutions to problems that stem from a maze of social and psychological factors. However, as the content of this book attests, science occupies an important and unique role in the criminal justice system—a role that relates to the scientist’s ability to supply accurate and objective information about the events that have occurred at a crime scene. A good deal of work remains to be done if the full potential of science as applied to criminal investigations is to be realized.

Because of the vast array of civil and criminal laws that regulate society, forensic science, in its broadest sense, has become so comprehensive a subject that a meaningful introductory text- book treating its role and techniques would be difficult to create and probably overwhelming to read. For this reason, we have narrowed the scope of the subject according to the most common definition: Forensic science is the application of science to the criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system. Forensic science is an umbrella term encompassing a myriad of professions that use their skills to aid law enforcement officials in conducting their investigations.

The diversity of professions practicing forensic science is illustrated by the eleven sections of the American Academy of Forensic Science, the largest forensic science organization in the world:

1. Criminalistics 2. Digital and Multimedia Sciences 3. Engineering Science 4. General 5. Jurisprudence 6. Odontology 7. Pathology/Biology 8. Physical Anthropology 9. Psychiatry/Behavioral Science 10. Questioned Documents 11. Toxicology

Even this list of professions is not exclusive. It does not encompass skills such as fingerprint examination, firearm and tool mark examination, and photography.

Obviously, to author a book covering all of the major activities of forensic science as they apply to the enforcement of criminal and civil laws by police agencies would be a major undertaking. Thus, this book will further restrict itself to discussions of the subjects of chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and computer technology, which are useful for determining the evidential value of crime-scene and related evidence. Forensic psychology, anthropology, and

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 5

odontology also encompass important and relevant areas of knowledge and practice in law enforcement, each being an integral part of the total forensic science service that is provided to any up-to-date criminal justice system. However, these subjects go beyond the intended scope of this book, and except for brief discussions, along with pointing the reader to relevant websites, the reader is referred elsewhere for discussions of their applications and techniques. Instead, this book focuses on the services of what has popularly become known as the crime laboratory, where the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences are practiced and applied to the analysis of crime-scene evidence.

For many, the term criminalistics seems more descriptive than forensic science for describ- ing the services of a crime laboratory. Regardless of his or her title—criminalist or forensic scientist—the trend of events has made the scientist in the crime laboratory an active participant in the criminal justice system.

Prime-time television shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have greatly increased the public’s awareness of the use of science in criminal and civil investigations (Figure 1–1). However, by simplifying scientific procedures to fit the allotted airtime, these shows have created within both the public and the legal community unrealistic expectations of forensic science. In these shows, members of the CSI team collect evidence at the crime scene, pro- cess all evidence, question witnesses, interrogate suspects, carry out search warrants, and testify in court. In the real world, these tasks are almost always delegated to different people in different parts of the criminal justice system. Procedures that in reality could take days, weeks, months, or years appear on these shows to take mere minutes. This false image is sig- nificantly responsible for the public’s high interest in and expectations for DNA evidence.

The dramatization of forensic science on television has led the public to believe that every crime scene will yield forensic evidence, and it produces unrealistic expectations that a prosecu- tor’s case should always be bolstered and supported by forensic evidence. This phenomenon is known as the “CSI effect.” Some jurists have come to believe that this phenomenon ultimately detracts from the search for truth and justice in the courtroom.

FIGURE 1–1 A scene from CSI, a forensic science television show.

S U

N /N

ew sc

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

6 CHAPTER 1

History and Development of Forensic Science Forensic science owes its origins first to the individuals who developed the principles and tech- niques needed to identify or compare physical evidence, and second to those who recognized the need to merge these principles into a coherent discipline that could be practically applied to a criminal justice system.

Literary Roots Today many believe that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had a considerable influence on popularizing sci- entific crime-detection methods through his fictional character Sherlock Holmes (see Figure 1–2),

who first applied the newly developing principles of serology (see Chapter 14), fingerprinting, firearms identification, and questioned- document examination long before their value was first recognized and accepted by real-life criminal investigators. Holmes’s feats excited the imagination of an emerging generation of forensic scientists and crim- inal investigators. Even in the first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887, we find examples of Doyle’s uncanny ability to describe scientific methods of detection years before they were actually discovered and implemented. For instance, here Holmes probes and recognizes the potential usefulness of forensic serology to criminal investigation:

“I’ve found it. I’ve found it,” he shouted to my companion, run- ning towards us with a test tube in his hand. “I have found a re- agent which is precipitated by hemoglobin and by nothing else. . . . Why, man, it is the most practical medico-legal discovery for years. Don’t you see that it gives us an infallible test for blood stains? . . . The old guaiacum test was very clumsy and uncertain. So is the microscopic examination for blood corpuscles. The lat- ter is valueless if the stains are a few hours old. Now, this appears to act as well whether the blood is old or new. Had this test been invented, there are hundreds of men now walking the earth who would long ago have paid the penalty of their crimes. . . . Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A man is sus- pected of a crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or clothes are examined and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they blood stains, or rust stains, or fruit stains, or what are they? That is a question which has puzzled many an expert, and why? Because there was no reliable test. Now we have the Sherlock Holmes test, and there will no longer be any difficulty.”

Important Contributors to Forensic Science Many people can be cited for their specific contributions to the field of forensic science. The following is just a brief list of those who made the earliest contributions to formulating the disciplines that now constitute forensic science.

MATHIEU ORFILA (1787–1853) Orfila is considered the father of forensic toxicology. A native of Spain, he ultimately became a renowned teacher of medicine in France. In 1814, Orfila published the first scientific treatise on the detection of poisons and their effects on animals. This treatise established forensic toxicology as a legitimate scientific endeavor.

ALPHONSE BERTILLON (1853–1914) Bertillon devised the first scientific system of personal identification. In 1879, Bertillon began to develop the science of anthropometry (see Chapter 6), a systematic procedure of taking a series of body measurements as a means of distinguishing one individual from another (see Figure 1–3). For nearly two decades, this system was considered

FIGURE 1–2 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective Sherlock Holmes applied many of the principles of modern forensic science long before they were adopted widely by police.

au l

C . C

ha un

ce y/

C O

R B

IS A

ll R

ig ht

s R

es er

ve d

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 7

FIGURE 1–3 Bertillon’s system of bodily measurements as used for the identification of an individual.

S ir

ch ie

F in

ge rp

ri nt

L ab

or at

or ie

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

8 CHAPTER 1

the most accurate method of personal identification. Although anthropometry was eventually replaced by fingerprinting in the early 1900s, Bertillon’s early efforts have earned him the distinction of being known as the father of criminal identification.

FRANCIS GALTON (1822–1911) Galton undertook the first definitive study of fingerprints and developed a methodology of classifying them for filing. In 1892, he published a book titled Finger Prints, which contained the first statistical proof supporting the uniqueness of his method of personal identification. His work went on to describe the basic principles that form the present system of identification by fingerprints.

LEONE LATTES (1887–1954) In 1901, Dr. Karl Landsteiner discovered that blood can be grouped into different categories. These blood groups or types are now recognized as A, B, AB, and O. The possibility that blood grouping could be a useful characteristic for the identification of an individual intrigued Dr. Lattes, a professor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turin in Italy. In 1915, he devised a relatively simple procedure for determining the blood group of a dried bloodstain, a technique that he immediately applied to criminal investigations.

CALVIN GODDARD (1891–1955) To determine whether a particular gun has fired a bullet requires a comparison of the bullet with one that has been test-fired from the suspect’s weapon. Goddard, a U.S. Army colonel, refined the techniques of such an examination by using the comparison microscope. From the mid-1920s on, Goddard’s expertise established the comparison microscope as the indispensable tool of the modern firearms examiner.

ALBERT S. OSBORN (1858–1946) Osborn’s development of the fundamental principles of document examination was responsible for the acceptance of documents as scientific evidence by the courts. In 1910, Osborn authored the first significant text in this field, Questioned Documents. This book is still considered a primary reference for document examiners.

WALTER C. MCCRONE (1916–2002) Dr. McCrone’s career paralleled startling advances in sophisticated analytical technology. Nevertheless, during his lifetime McCrone became the world’s preeminent microscopist. Through his books, journal publications, and research institute, McCrone was a tireless advocate for applying microscopy to analytical problems, particularly forensic science cases. McCrone’s exceptional communication skills made him a much-sought- after instructor, and he was responsible for educating thousands of forensic scientists throughout the world in the application of microscopic techniques. Dr. McCrone used microscopy, often in conjunction with other analytical methodologies, to examine evidence in thousands of criminal and civil cases throughout a long and illustrious career.

HANS GROSS (1847–1915) Gross wrote the first treatise describing the application of scientific disciplines to the field of criminal investigation in 1893. A public prosecutor and judge in Graz, Austria, Gross spent many years studying and developing principles of criminal investigation. In his classic book Handbuch für Untersuchungsrichter als System der Kriminalistik (later published in English under the title Criminal Investigation), he detailed the assistance that investigators could expect from the fields of microscopy, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anthropometry, and fingerprinting. He later introduced the forensic journal Archiv für Kriminal Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, which still serves as a medium for reporting improved methods of scientific crime detection.

EDMOND LOCARD (1877–1966) Although Gross was a strong advocate of the use of the scientific method in criminal investigation, he did not make any specific technical contributions to this philosophy. Locard, a Frenchman, demonstrated how the principles enunciated by Gross could be incorporated within a workable crime laboratory. Locard’s formal education was in both medicine and law. In 1910, he persuaded the Lyons police department to give him two attic rooms and two assistants to start a police laboratory.

During Locard’s first years of work, the only available instruments were a microscope and a rudimentary spectrometer. However, his enthusiasm quickly overcame the technical and mon- etary deficiencies he encountered. From these modest beginnings, Locard’s research and accom- plishments became known throughout the world by forensic scientists and criminal investigators.

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 9

Eventually he became the founder and director of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyons; this quickly developed into a leading international center for study and research in forensic science.

Locard believed that when a person comes in contact with an object or person, a cross- transfer of materials occurs (Locard’s exchange principle). Locard maintained that every criminal can be connected to a crime by dust particles carried from the crime scene. This con- cept was reinforced by a series of successful and well-publicized investigations. In one case, presented with counterfeit coins and the names of three suspects, Locard urged the police to bring the suspects’ clothing to his laboratory. On careful examination, he located small metal- lic particles in all the garments. Chemical analysis revealed that the particles and coins were composed of exactly the same metallic elements. Confronted with this evidence, the suspects were arrested and soon confessed to the crime. After World War I, Locard’s successes served as an impetus for the formation of police laboratories in Vienna, Berlin, Sweden, Finland, and Holland.

Crime Laboratories The most ambitious commitment to forensic science occurred in the United States with the sys- tematic development of national and state crime laboratories. This development greatly hastened the progress of forensic science.

Crime Labs in the United States In 1932, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the directorship of J. Edgar Hoover, organized a national laboratory that offered forensic services to all law enforcement agencies in the country. During its formative stages, agents consulted extensively with business executives, manufacturers, and scientists whose knowledge and experience were useful in guiding the new facility through its infancy. The FBI Laboratory is now the world’s largest forensic laboratory, performing more than one million examinations every year. Its accomplishments have earned it worldwide recognition, and its structure and organization have served as a model for forensic laboratories formed at the state and local levels in the United States as well as in other countries. Furthermore, the opening of the FBI’s Forensic Science Research and Training Center in 1981 gave the United States, for the first time, a facility dedicated to conducting research to develop new and reliable scientific methods that can be applied to forensic science. This facility is also used to train crime laboratory personnel in the latest forensic science techniques and methods.

The oldest forensic laboratory in the United States is that of the Los Angeles Police Department, created in 1923 by August Vollmer, a police chief from Berkeley, California. In the 1930s, Vollmer headed the first U.S. university institute for criminology and criminalistics at the University of California at Berkeley. However, this institute lacked any official status in the university until 1948, when a school of criminology was formed. The famous criminalist Paul Kirk (see Figure 1–4) was selected to head its criminalistics department. Many graduates of this school have gone on to help develop forensic laboratories in other parts of the state and country.

California has numerous federal, state, county, and city crime laborato- ries, many of which operate independently. However, in 1972 the California Department of Justice embarked on an ambitious plan to create a network of state-operated crime laboratories. As a result, California has created a model system of integrated forensic laboratories consisting of regional and satellite facilities. An informal exchange of information and expertise is facilitated among California’s criminalist community through a regional professional society, the California Association of Criminalists. This organization was the forerunner of a number of regional organizations that have developed throughout the United States to foster cooperation among the nation’s growing community of criminalists.

Locard’s exchange principle Whenever two objects come into contact with one another, there is exchange of materials between them.

FIGURE 1–4 Paul Leland Kirk, 1902–1970.

et tm

an n/

C O

R B

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

10 CHAPTER 1

International Crime Labs In contrast to the American system of independent local laboratories, Great Britain had de- veloped a national system of regional laboratories under the direction of the government’s Home Office. In the early 1990s, the British Home Office reorganized the country’s forensic laboratories into the Forensic Science Service and instituted a system in which police agencies are charged a fee for services rendered by the laboratory. The fee-for-service concept encour- aged the creation of a number of private laboratories that provide services to both police and criminal defense attorneys. One such organization is LGC. In 2010, the British government announced the closure of the Forensic Science Service, citing financial losses. The laboratories closed in 2012, and forensic work in England and Wales is now contracted out to the private sector. Since privatization, LGC has grown to be the largest forensic science provider in the United Kingdom, employing more than seven hundred forensic scientists servicing both police agencies and the private sector.

In Canada, forensic services are provided by three government-funded institutes: (1) six Royal Canadian Mounted Police regional laboratories, (2) the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto, and (3) the Institute of Legal Medicine and Police Science in Montreal. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police opened its first laboratory in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1937. Alto- gether, more than a hundred countries throughout the world have at least one laboratory facility offering services in the field of forensic science.

Organization of a Crime Laboratory The development of crime laboratories in the United States has been characterized by rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional planning and coordination. It is estimated that more than 411 publicly funded crime laboratories currently operate at vari- ous levels of government (federal, state, county, and municipal)—more than three times the number of crime laboratories operating in 1966. They employ more than 14,000 full-time personnel.

The size and diversity of crime laboratories make it impossible to select any one model that best describes a typical crime laboratory. Although most of these facilities function as part of a police department, others operate under the direction of the prosecutor’s or district attorney’s office; some work with the laboratories of the medical examiner or coroner. Far fewer are af- filiated with universities or exist as independent agencies in government. Laboratory staff sizes range from one person to more than a hundred, and their services may be diverse or specialized, depending on the responsibilities of the agency that houses the laboratory.

The Growth of Crime Laboratories Crime laboratories have mostly been organized by agencies that either foresaw their potential application to criminal investigation or were pressed by the increasing demands of casework. Several reasons explain the unparalleled growth of crime laboratories during the past thirty- five years. Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s were responsible for greater police emphasis on securing scientifically evaluated evidence. The requirement to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to counsel has all but eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool. Successful prosecution of criminal cases requires a thorough and professional police investigation, frequently incorporating the skills of forensic science experts. Modern technology has provided forensic scientists with many new skills and techniques to meet the challenges accompanying their increased participation in the criminal justice system.

Coinciding with changing judicial requirements has been the staggering increase in crime rates in the United States over the past forty years. This factor alone would probably have ac- counted for the increased use of crime laboratory services by police agencies, but only a small percentage of police investigations generate evidence requiring scientific examination. There is, however, one important exception to this observation: drug-related arrests. All illicit-drug seizures must be sent to a forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before the case can be adjudicated. Since the mid-1960s, drug abuse has accelerated to nearly uncontrollable

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 11

levels and has resulted in crime laboratories being inundated with drug specimens. Current es- timates indicate that nearly half of all requests for examination of forensic evidence deal with abused drugs.

Future Challenges A more recent impetus leading to the growth and maturation of crime laboratories has been the advent of DNA profiling. Since the early 1990s, this technology has progressed to the point at which traces of blood, semen stains, hair, and saliva residues left behind on stamps, cups, bite marks, and so on have made possible the individualization or near-individualization of biological evidence. To meet the demands of DNA technology, crime labs have expanded staff and in many cases modernized their physical plants. The labor-intensive demands and sophisticated require- ments of the technology have affected the structure of the forensic laboratory as has no other technology in the past fifty years. Likewise, DNA profiling has become the dominant factor in explaining how the general public perceives the workings and capabilities of the modern crime laboratory.

In coming years an estimated ten thousand forensic scientists will be added to the rolls of both public and private forensic laboratories to process crime-scene evidence for DNA and to acquire DNA profiles, as mandated by state laws, from the hundreds of thousands of individuals convicted of crimes. This endeavor has already added many new scientists to the field and will eventually more than double the number of scientists employed by forensic laboratories in the United States.

A major problem facing the forensic DNA community is the substantial backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples from crime scenes. The number of unanalyzed casework DNA samples reported by state and national agencies is more than 57,000. The estimated number of untested convicted offender samples is more than 500,000. In an attempt to eliminate the backlog of convicted offender or arrestee samples to be analyzed and entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the federal government has initiated funding for in-house analysis of samples at the crime laboratory or outsourcing samples to private labo- ratories for analysis.

Beginning in 2008, California began collecting DNA samples from all people arrested on sus- picion of a felony, not waiting until a person is convicted. The state’s database, with approximately one million DNA profiles, is already the third largest in the world, behind those maintained by the United Kingdom and the FBI. The federal government plans to begin doing the same.

Types of Crime Laboratories Historically, a federal system of government, combined with a desire to retain local control, has produced a variety of independent laboratories in the United States, precluding the creation of a national system. Crime laboratories to a large extent mirror the fragmented law enforcement structure that exists on the national, state, and local levels.

FEDERAL CRIME LABORATORIES The federal government has no single law enforcement or investigative agency with unlimited jurisdiction. Four major federal crime laboratories have been created to help investigate and enforce criminal laws that extend beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of state and local forces.

The FBI (Department of Justice) maintains the largest crime laboratory in the world. An ultramodern facility housing the FBI’s forensic science services is located in Quantico, Virginia (see Figure 1–5). Its expertise and technology support its broad investigative powers. The Drug Enforcement Administration laboratories (Department of Justice) analyze drugs seized in viola- tion of federal laws regulating the production, sale, and transportation of drugs. The laboratories of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Department of Justice) analyze alcoholic beverages and documents relating to alcohol and firearm excise tax law enforcement and examine weapons, explosive devices, and related evidence to enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service main- tains laboratories concerned with criminal investigations relating to the postal service. Each of these federal facilities will offer its expertise to any local agency that requests assistance in rel- evant investigative matters.

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

12 CHAPTER 1

STATE AND LOCAL CRIME LABORATORIES Most state governments maintain a crime laboratory to service state and local law enforcement agencies that do not have ready access to a laboratory. Some states, such as Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, and Florida, have developed a comprehensive statewide system of regional or satellite laboratories. These operate under the direction of a central facility and provide forensic services to most areas of the state. The concept of a regional laboratory operating as part of a statewide system has increased the accessibility of many local law enforcement agencies to a crime laboratory, while minimizing duplication of services and ensuring maximum interlaboratory cooperation through the sharing of expertise and equipment.

Local laboratories provide services to county and municipal agencies. Generally, these facilities operate independently of the state crime laboratory and are financed directly by local government. However, as costs have risen, some counties have combined resources and created multicounty laboratories to service their jurisdictions. Many of the larger cities in the United States maintain their own crime laboratories, usually under the direction of the local police department. Frequently, high population and high crime rates combine to make a municipal facility, such as that of New York City, the largest crime laboratory in the state.

Services of the Crime Laboratory Bearing in mind the independent development of crime laboratories in the United States, the wide variation in total services offered in different communities is not surprising. There are many reasons for this, including (1) variations in local laws, (2) the different capabilities and functions of the organization to which a laboratory is attached, and (3) budgetary and staffing limitations.

In recent years, many local crime laboratories have been created solely to process drug specimens. Often these facilities were staffed with few personnel and operated under limited budgets. Although many have expanded their forensic services, some still primarily perform drug analyses. However, even among crime laboratories providing services beyond drug identifica- tion, the diversity and quality of services rendered vary significantly. For the purposes of this text, I have taken the liberty of arbitrarily designating the following units as those that should constitute a “full-service” crime laboratory.

Basic Services Provided by Full-Service Crime Laboratories PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNIT The physical science unit applies principles and techniques of chemistry, physics, and geology to the identification and comparison of crime-scene evidence. It is staffed by criminalists who have the expertise to use chemical tests and modern analytical instrumentation to examine items as diverse as drugs, glass, paint, explosives, and soil. In a laboratory that has a staff large enough to permit specialization, the responsibilities of this unit

FIGURE 1–5 (a) Exterior and (b) interior views of the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.

C ha

rl es

D ha

ra pa

k/ A

P I

m ag

C ha

rl es

D ha

ra pa

k/ A

P I

m ag

(a) (b)

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 13

may be further subdivided into drug identification, soil and mineral analysis, and examination of a variety of trace physical evidence.

BIOLOGY UNIT The biology unit is staffed with biologists and biochemists who identify and perform DNA profiling on dried bloodstains and other body fluids, compare hairs and fibers, and identify and compare botanical materials such as wood and plants (see Figure 1–6).

FIREARMS UNIT The firearms unit examines firearms, discharged bullets, cartridge cases, shotgun shells, and ammunition of all types. Garments and other objects are also examined to detect firearms discharge residues and to approximate the distance from a target at which a weapon was fired. The basic principles of firearms examination are also applied here to the comparison of marks made by tools (see Figure 1–7).

DOCUMENT EXAMINATION UNIT The document examination unit studies the handwriting and typewriting on questioned documents to ascertain authenticity and/or source. Related responsibilities include analyzing paper and ink and examining indented writings (the term usually applied to the partially visible depressions appearing on a sheet of paper underneath the one on which the visible writing appears), obliterations, erasures, and burned or charred documents.

PHOTOGRAPHY UNIT A complete photographic laboratory examines and records physical evidence. Its procedures may require the use of highly specialized photographic techniques, such as digital imaging, infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray photography, to make invisible information visible to the naked eye. This unit also prepares photographic exhibits for courtroom presentation.

FIGURE 1–6 A forensic scientist performing DNA analysis.

P ho

to R

es ea

rc he

rs , I

nc .

FIGURE 1–7 A forensic analyst examining a firearm.

ed ia

co lo

r’ s/

A la

m y

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

14 CHAPTER 1

Optional Services Provided by Full-Service Crime Laboratories TOXICOLOGY UNIT The toxicology group examines body fluids and organs to determine the presence or absence of drugs and poisons. Frequently, such functions are shared with or may be the sole responsibility of a separate laboratory facility placed under the direction of the medical examiner’s or coroner’s office.

In most jurisdictions, field instruments such as the Intoxilyzer are used to determine the al- coholic consumption of individuals. Often the toxicology section also trains operators and main- tains and services these instruments.

LATENT FINGERPRINT UNIT The latent fingerprint unit processes and examines evidence for latent fingerprints when they are submitted in conjunction with other laboratory examinations.

POLYGRAPH UNIT The polygraph, or lie detector, has come to be recognized as an essential tool of the criminal investigator rather than the forensic scientist. However, during the formative years of polygraph technology, many police agencies incorporated this unit into the laboratory’s administrative structure, where it sometimes remains today. In any case, its functions are handled by people trained in the techniques of criminal investigation and interrogation.

VOICEPRINT ANALYSIS UNIT In cases involving telephoned threats or tape-recorded messages, investigators may require the skills of the voiceprint analysis unit to tie the voice to a particular suspect. To this end, a good deal of casework has been performed with the sound spectrograph, an instrument that transforms speech into a visual display called a voiceprint. The validity of this technique as a means of personal identification rests on the premise that the sound patterns produced in speech are unique to the individual and that the voiceprint displays this uniqueness.

CRIME-SCENE INVESTIGATION UNIT The concept of incorporating crime-scene evidence collection into the total forensic science service is slowly gaining recognition in the United States. This unit dispatches specially trained personnel (civilian and/or police) to the crime scene to collect and preserve physical evidence that will later be processed at the crime laboratory.

Whatever the organizational structure of a forensic science laboratory may be, specialization must not impede the overall coordination of services demanded by today’s criminal investigator. Laboratory administrators need to keep open the lines of communication between analysts (civil- ian and uniform), crime-scene investigators, and police personnel. Inevitably, forensic investiga- tions require the skills of many individuals. One notoriously high-profile investigation illustrates this process—the search to uncover the source of the anthrax letters mailed shortly after Septem- ber 11, 2001. Figure 1–8 shows one of the letters and illustrates the multitude of skills required in the investigation—skills possessed by forensic chemists and biologists, fingerprint examiners, and forensic document examiners.

Functions of the Forensic Scientist Although a forensic scientist relies primarily on scientific knowledge and skill, only half of the job is performed in the laboratory. The other half takes place in the courtroom, where the ultimate significance of the evidence is determined. The forensic scientist must not only analyze physical evidence but also persuade a jury to accept the conclusions derived from that analysis.

Analysis of Physical Evidence First and foremost, the forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles and tech- niques of the physical and natural sciences to analyze the many types of physical evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation. Of the three major avenues available to police investigators for assistance in solving a crime—confessions, eyewitness accounts by victims or witnesses, and the evaluation of physical evidence retrieved from the crime scene—only physical evidence is free of inherent error or bias.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE Criminal cases are replete with examples of individuals who were incorrectly charged with and convicted of committing a crime because of faulty memories or lapses in judgment. For example, investigators may be led astray during their preliminary evaluation of the events and circumstances surrounding the commission of a

WEBEXTRA 1.1 Take a Tour of a Forensic Laboratory

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

1 5

Fingerprints may be detectable on paper using a variety of chemical developing techniques (pp. 137–42).

Cellophane tape was used to seal four envelopes containing the anthrax letters. The fitting together of the serrated ends of the tape strips confirmed that they were torn in succession from the same roll of tape (pp. 62–63).

DNA may be recovered from saliva residues on the back of a stamp (p. 397). However, in this case, the stamp is printed onto the envelope.

Ink analysis may reveal a pen’s manufacturer (pp. 451–55).

Paper examination may identify a manufacturer. General appearance, watermarks, fiber analysis, and chemical analysis of pigments, additives, and fillers may reveal a paper’s origin (p. 455).

Photocopier toner may reveal its manufacturer through chemical and physical properties (p. 446).Indented writing may be deposited

on paper left underneath a sheet of paper being written upon. Electrostatic imaging is used to visualize indented impressions on paper (p. 450).

Handwriting examination reveals that block lettering is consistent with a single writer who wrote three other anthrax letters (pp. 440–45).

DNA may be recovered from saliva used to seal an envelope (p. 397).

Trace evidence, such as hairs and fibers, may be present within the contents of the envelope.

FIGURE 1–8 An envelope containing anthrax spores along with an anonymous letter was sent to the office of Senator Tom Daschle shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A variety of forensic skills were used to examine the envelope and letter. Also, bar codes placed on the front and back of the envelope by mail-sorting machines contain address information and information about where the envelope was first processed.

G et

ty I

m ag

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

16 CHAPTER 1

crime. These errors may be compounded by misleading eyewitness statements and inappropriate confessions. These same concerns don’t apply to physical evidence.

What about physical evidence allows investigators to sort out facts as they are and not what one wishes they were? The hallmark of physical evidence is that it must undergo scientific in- quiry. Science derives its integrity from adherence to strict guidelines that ensure the careful and systematic collection, organization, and analysis of information—a process known as the scientific method. The underlying principles of the scientific method provide a safety net to ensure that the outcome of an investigation is not tainted by human emotion or compromised by distorting, belittling, or ignoring contrary evidence.

The scientific method begins by formulating a question worthy of investigation, such as who committed a particular crime. The investigator next formulates a hypothesis, a reasonable explanation proposed to answer the question. What follows is the basic foundation of scientific inquiry—the testing of the hypothesis through experimentation. The testing process must be thorough and recognized by other scientists as valid. Scientists and investigators must accept the experimental findings even when they wish they were different. Finally, when the hypothesis is validated by experimentation, it becomes suitable as scientific evidence, appropriate for use in a criminal investigation and ultimately available for admission in a court of law.

DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE In rejecting the scientific validity of the lie detector (polygraph), the District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1923 set forth what has since become a standard guideline for determining the judicial admissibility of scientific examinations. In Frye v. United States,1 the court stated the following:

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admit- ting 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 gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

To meet the Frye standard, the court must decide whether the questioned procedure, tech- nique, or principle is “generally accepted” by a meaningful segment of the relevant scientific com- munity. In practice, this approach required the proponent of a scientific test to present to the court a collection of experts who could testify that the scientific issue before the court is generally ac- cepted by the relevant members of the scientific community. Furthermore, in determining whether a novel technique meets criteria associated with “general acceptance,” courts have frequently taken note of books and papers written on the subject, as well as prior judicial decisions relating to the reliability and general acceptance of the technique. In recent years this approach has en- gendered a great deal of debate as to whether it is sufficiently flexible to deal with new and novel scientific issues that may not have gained widespread support within the scientific community.

OTHER STANDARDS OF ADMISSIBILITY As an alternative to the Frye standard, some courts came to believe that the Federal Rules of Evidence espoused a more flexible standard that did not rely on general acceptance as an absolute prerequisite for admitting scientific evidence. Part of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of all evidence, including expert testimony, in federal courts, and many states have adopted codes similar to those of the Federal Rules. Specifically, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the admissibility of expert testimony:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to un- derstand 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, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

In a landmark ruling in the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,2 the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that “general acceptance,” or the Frye standard, is not an abso- lute prerequisite to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

scientific method A process that uses strict guidelines to ensure careful and systematic collection, organization, and analysis of information.

1 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 2 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 17

According to the Court, the Rules of Evidence—especially Rule 702—assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the case. Although this ruling applies only to federal courts, many state courts are expected to use this decision as a guideline in setting standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

JUDGING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE What the Court advocates in Daubert is that trial judges assume the ultimate responsibility for acting as a “gatekeeper” in judging the admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence presented in their courts (see Figure 1–9). The Court offered some guidelines as to how a judge can gauge the veracity of scientific evidence, emphasizing that the inquiry should be flexible. Suggested areas of inquiry include the following:

1. Whether the scientific technique or theory can be (and has been) tested 2. Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication 3. The technique’s potential rate of error 4. Existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation 5. Whether the scientific theory or method has attracted widespread acceptance within a rel-

evant scientific community

Some legal practitioners have expressed concern that abandoning Frye’s general-acceptance test will result in the introduction of absurd and irrational pseudoscientific claims in the court- room. The Supreme Court rejected these concerns:

In this regard the respondent seems to us to be overly pessimistic about the capabilities of the jury and of the adversary system generally. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

In a 1999 decision, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,3 the Court unanimously ruled that the “gatekeeping” role of the trial judge applied not only to scientific testimony, but to all expert testimony:

We conclude that Daubert’s general holding—setting forth the trial judge’s general “gate- keeping” obligation—applies not only to testimony based on “scientific” knowledge, but also to testimony based on “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge. . . . We also conclude

FIGURE 1–9 Sketch of a U.S. Supreme Court hearing.

3 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

rt L

ie n,

C ou

rt A

rt is

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

18 CHAPTER 1

that a trial court may consider one or more of the more specific factors that Daubert men- tioned when doing so will help determine that testimony’s reliability. But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is “flexible,” and Daubert’s list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts in every case.

A leading case that exemplifies the type of flexibility and wide discretion that the Daubert ruling apparently gives trial judges in matters of scientific inquiry is Coppolino v. State.4 Here a medical examiner testified to his finding that the victim had died of an overdose of a drug known as succinylcholine chloride. This drug had never before been detected in the human body. The medical examiner’s findings were dependent on a toxicological report that identified an abnor- mally high concentration of succinic acid, a breakdown product of the drug, in the victim’s body. The defense argued that this test for the presence of succinylcholine chloride was new and the absence of corroborative experimental data by other scientists meant that it had not yet gained general acceptance in the toxicology profession. The court, in rejecting this argument, recog- nized the necessity for devising new scientific tests to solve the special problems that are continu- ally arising in the forensic laboratory. It emphasized, however, that although these tests may be new and unique, they are admissible only if they are based on scientifically valid principles and techniques: “The tests by which the medical examiner sought to determine whether death was caused by succinylcholine chloride were novel and devised specifically for this case. This does not render the evidence inadmissible. Society need not tolerate homicide until there develops a body of medical literature about some particular lethal agent.”

4 223 So. 2d 68 (Fla. App. 1968), app. dismissed, 234 So. 2d (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 (1970).

Dr. Coppolino’s Deadly House Calls A frantic late-night telephone call brought a local physician to the Florida home of Drs. Carl and Carmela Coppolino. The physician arrived to find Carmela beyond help. Carmela Coppolino’s body, unexamined by anyone, was then buried in her family’s plot in her home state of New Jersey.

A little more than a month later, Carl married a moneyed so- cialite, Mary Gibson. News of Carl’s marriage infuriated Mar- jorie Farber, a former New Jersey neighbor of Dr. Coppolino who had been a having an affair with the good doctor. Soon Marjorie had an interesting story to recount to investigators: Her husband’s death two years before, although ruled to be from natural causes, had actually been murder! Carl, an anesthesiologist, had given Marjorie a syringe containing some medication and told her to inject her husband, William, while he was sleeping. Ultimately, Marjorie claimed, she was unable to inject the full dose and called Carl, who finished the job by suffocating William with a pillow.

Marjorie Farber’s astonishing story was supported in part by Carl’s having recently increased his wife’s life insurance. Car- mela’s $65,000 policy, along with his new wife’s fortune, would keep Dr. Coppolino in high society for the rest of his life. Based on this information, authorities in New Jersey and Florida ob- tained exhumation orders for both William Farber and Carmela Coppolino. After both bodies were examined, Dr. Coppolino was charged with the murders of William and Carmela.

Officials decided to try Dr. Coppolino first in New Jersey for the murder of William Farber. The Farber autopsy did not reveal any evidence of poisoning but seemed to show strong evidence of strangulation. The absence of toxicologi- cal findings left the jury to deliberate the conflicting medi- cal expert testimony versus the sensational story told by a scorned and embittered woman. In the end, Dr. Coppolino was acquitted.

The Florida trial presented another chance to bring Carl Coppolino to justice. Recalling Dr. Coppolino’s career as an anesthesiologist, the prosecution theorized that to commit these murders Coppolino had exploited his access to the many potent drugs used during surgery, specifically an injectable paralytic agent called succinylcholine chloride.

Carmela’s body was exhumed, and it was found that Carmela had been injected in her left buttock shortly be- fore her death. Ultimately, a completely novel procedure for detecting succinylcholine chloride was devised. With this pro- cedure elevated levels of succinic acid were found in Carmela’s brain, which proved that she had received a large dose of the paralytic drug shortly before her death. This evidence, along with evidence of the same drug residues in the injection site on her buttock, was presented in the Florida murder trial of Carl Coppolino, who was convicted of second-degree murder.

ca se

f ile

Providing Expert Testimony Because the results of their work may be a factor in determining a person’s ultimate guilt or innocence, forensic scientists may be required to testify about their methods and conclusions at a trial or hearing.

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 19

Trial courts have broad discretion in accepting an individual as an expert witness on any particular subject. Generally, if a witness can establish to the satisfaction of a trial judge that he or she possesses a particular skill or has knowledge in a trade or profession that will aid the court in determining the truth of the matter at issue, that individual will be accepted as an expert witness. Depending on the subject area in question, the court will usually consider knowledge acquired through experience, training, education, or a combination of these as sufficient grounds for qualification as an expert witness.

In court, an expert witness may be asked questions intended to demonstrate his or her ability and competence pertaining to the matter at hand. Competency may be established by having the witness cite educational degrees, participation in special courses, membership in professional societies, and any professional articles or books published. Also important is the number of years of occupational experience the witness has had in areas related to the matter before the court.

Most chemists, biologists, geologists, and physicists prepare themselves for careers in fo- rensic science by combining training under an experienced examiner with independent study. Of course, formal education in the physical sciences provides a firm foundation for learning and understanding the principles and techniques of forensic science. Nevertheless, for the most part, courts must rely on training and years of experience as a measurement of the knowledge and ability of the expert.

Before the judge rules on the witness’s qualifications, the opposing attorney may cross- examine the witness and point out weaknesses in training and knowledge. Most courts are reluctant to disqualify an individual as an expert even when presented with someone whose background is only remotely associated with the issue at hand. The question of what credentials are suitable for qualification as an expert is ambiguous and highly subjective and one that the courts wisely try to avoid.

The weight that a judge or jury assigns to “expert” testimony in subsequent deliberations is, however, quite another matter. Undoubtedly, education and experience have considerable bear- ing on what value should be assigned to the expert’s opinions. Just as important may be his or her demeanor and ability to explain scientific data and conclusions clearly, concisely, and logi- cally to a judge and jury composed of nonscientists. The problem of sorting out the strengths and weaknesses of expert testimony falls to prosecution and defense counsel.

The ordinary or lay witness must testify on events or observations that arise from personal knowledge. This testimony must be factual and, with few exceptions, cannot contain the personal opinions of the witness. On the other hand, the expert witness is called on to evaluate evidence when the court lacks the expertise to do so. This expert then expresses an opinion as to the signifi- cance of the findings. The views expressed are accepted only as representing the expert’s opinion and may later be accepted or ignored in jury deliberations (see Figure 1–10).

The expert cannot render any view with absolute certainty. At best, he or she may only be able to offer an opinion based on a reasonable scientific certainty derived from training and ex- perience. Obviously, the expert is expected to defend vigorously the techniques and conclusions of the analysis, but at the same time he or she must not be reluctant to discuss impartially any findings that could minimize the significance of the analysis. The forensic scientist should not be an advocate of one party’s cause but an advocate of truth only. An adversary system of justice must give the prosecutor and defense ample opportunity to offer expert opinions and to argue the merits of such testimony. Ultimately, the duty of the judge or jury is to weigh the pros and cons of all the information presented when deciding guilt or innocence.

The necessity for the forensic scientist to appear in court has been imposed on the crimi- nal justice system by a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.5 The Melendez-Diaz decision addressed the practice of using evidence affidavits or laboratory certifi- cates in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic analysts. In its reasoning, the Court relied on a previous ruling, Crawford v. Washington,6 where it explored the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In the Crawford case, a recorded statement by a spouse was used against her husband in his prosecution. Crawford argued that this was a violation of his right to confront witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment, and the Court agreed. Using the same logic in Melendez-Diaz , the Court reasoned that introducing forensic science evidence via

expert witness An individual whom the court determines to possess knowledge relevant to the trial that is not expected of the average layperson.

5 557 U.S. 305 (2009). 6 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

20 CHAPTER 1

an affidavit or a certificate denied a defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the analyst. In 2011, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Melendez-Diaz decision in the case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico7 by rejecting a substitute expert witness in lieu of the original analyst:

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross- examine that particular scientist.

Furnishing Training in the Proper Recognition, Collection, and Preservation of Physical Evidence The competence of a laboratory staff and the sophistication of its analytical equipment have little or no value if relevant evidence cannot be properly recognized, collected, and preserved at the site of a crime. For this reason, the forensic staff must have responsibilities that will influence the conduct of the crime-scene investigation.

The most direct and effective response to this problem has been to dispatch specially trained evidence-collection technicians to the crime scene. A growing number of crime laboratories and the police agencies they service keep trained “evidence technicians” on 24-hour call to help criminal investigators retrieve evidence. These technicians are trained by the laboratory staff to recognize and gather pertinent physical evidence at the crime scene. They are assigned to the laboratory full time for continued exposure to forensic techniques and procedures. They have at their disposal all the proper tools and supplies for proper collection and packaging of evidence for future scientific examination.

Unfortunately, many police forces still have not adopted this approach. Often a patrol officer or detective collects the evidence. The individual’s effectiveness in this role depends on the ex- tent of his or her training and working relationship with the laboratory. For maximum use of the skills of the crime laboratory, training of the crime-scene investigator must go beyond superficial

7 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011).

WEBEXTRA 1.2 Watch a Forensic Expert Witness Testify—I

WEBEXTRA 1.3 Watch a Forensic Expert Witness Testify—II

FIGURE 1–10 An expert witness testifying in court.

U M

A P

re ss

, I nc

./ A

la m

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 21

classroom lectures to involve extensive personal contact with the forensic scientist. Each must become aware of the other’s problems, techniques, and limitations.

The training of police officers in evidence collection and their familiarization with the ca- pabilities of a crime laboratory should not be restricted to a select group of personnel on the force. Every officer engaged in fieldwork, whether it be traffic, patrol, investigation, or juvenile control, often must process evidence for laboratory examination. Obviously, it would be difficult and time consuming to give everyone the in-depth training and attention that a qualified criminal investigator requires. However, familiarity with crime laboratory services and capabilities can be gained through periodic lectures, laboratory tours, and dissemination of manuals prepared by the laboratory staff that outline the proper methods for collecting and submitting physical evidence to the laboratory (see Figure 1–11).

A brief outline describing the proper collection and packaging of common types of physical evidence is found in Appendix I. The procedures and information summarized in this appendix are discussed in greater detail in forthcoming chapters.

Other Forensic Science Services Even though this textbook is devoted to describing the services normally provided by a crime laboratory, the field of forensic science is by no means limited to the areas covered in this book. A number of specialized forensic science services outside the crime laboratory are routinely available to law enforcement personnel. These services are important aids to a criminal investiga- tion and require the involvement of individuals who have highly specialized skills.

Forensic Psychiatry Forensic psychiatry is a specialized area in which the relationship between human behavior and legal proceedings is examined. Forensic psychiatrists are retained for both civil and criminal liti- gations. For civil cases, forensic psychiatrists normally determine whether people are competent to make decisions about preparing wills, settling property, or refusing medical treatment. For criminal cases, they evaluate behavioral disorders and determine whether people are competent to stand trial. Forensic psychiatrists also examine behavioral patterns of criminals as an aid in developing a suspect’s behavioral profile.

FIGURE 1–11 Representative evidence-collection guides prepared by various police agencies.

R ic

ha rd

S af

er st

ei n,

P h.

D .

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

22 CHAPTER 1

Forensic Odontology Practitioners of forensic odontology help identify victims when the body is left in an unrec- ognizable state. Teeth are composed of enamel, the hardest substance in the body. Because of enamel’s resilience, the teeth outlast tissues and organs as decomposition begins. The char- acteristics of teeth, their alignment, and the overall structure of the mouth provide individual evidence for identifying a specific person. With the use of dental records such as X-rays and dental casts or even a photograph of the person’s smile, a set of dental remains can be com- pared to a suspected victim. Another application of forensic odontology to criminal inves- tigations is bite mark analysis. At times in assault cases, bite marks are left on the victim. A forensic odontologist can compare the marks left on a victim and the tooth structure of the suspect (see Figure 1–12).

Forensic Engineering Forensic engineers are concerned with failure analysis, accident reconstruction, and causes and origins of fires or explosions. Forensic engineers answer questions such as these: How did an accident or structural failure occur? Were the parties involved responsible? If so, how were they responsible? Accident scenes are examined, photographs are reviewed, and any mechanical objects involved are inspected.

Forensic Computer and Digital Analysis Forensic computer science is a new and fast-growing field that involves the identification, collec- tion, preservation, and examination of information derived from computers and other digital de- vices, such as cell phones. Law enforcement aspects of this work normally involve the recovery of deleted or overwritten data from a computer’s hard drive and the tracking of hacking activities within a compromised system. This field of forensic computer analysis and recovery of data from mobile devices will be addressed in detail in Chapters 18 and 19.

FIGURE 1–12 (a) Bite mark on victim’s body. (b) Comparison to suspect’s teeth.

(a) (b)

B ar

ba ra

L . N

ee dl

e, D

M D

, D A

B F

B ar

ba ra

L . N

ee dl

e, D

M D

, D A

B F

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 23

Exploring Forensic Science on the Internet There are no limits to the amount or type of information that can be found on the Internet. The fields of law enforcement and forensic science have not been left behind by advancing computer technology. Extensive information about forensic science is available on the Internet. The types of information available on websites range from simple explanations of the various fields of forensics to intricate details of crime-scene reconstruction. People can also find information on which colleges offer degree programs in forensics and web pages posted by law enforcement agencies that detail their activities as well as employment opportunities.

General Forensics Sites Reddy’s Forensic Home Page (www.forensicpage.com) is a valuable starting point. This site is a collection of forensic web pages in categories such as new links in forensics; general forensic information sources; associations, colleges, and societies; literature and journals; forensic labo- ratories; general web pages; forensic-related mailing lists and newsgroups; universities; confer- ences; and various forensic fields of expertise.

Another website offering a multitude of information related to forensic science is Zeno’s Forensic Site (www.forensic.to/forensic.html). Here users can find links related to forensic edu- cation and expert consultation, as well as a wealth of information concerning specific fields of forensic science.

A comprehensive and useful website for those interested in law enforcement is Officer.com (www.officer.com). This comprehensive collection of criminal justice resources is organized into easy-to-read subdirectories that relate to topics such as law enforcement agencies, police association and organization sites, criminal justice organizations, law research pages, and police mailing-list directories.

AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC FIREARM IDENTIFICATION (http://www.firearmsid .com/) This website contains an extensive collection of information relating to the identification of firearms. An individual can explore in detail how to examine bullets, cartridge cases, and clothing for gunshot residues and suspect shooters’ hands for primer residues. Information on the latest technology involving the automated firearms search system NIBIN can also be found on this site.

CARPENTER’S FORENSIC SCIENCE RESOURCES (http://www.tncrimlaw.com/forensic/) This site provides a bibliography involving forensic evidence. For example, the user can find references about DNA, fingerprints, hairs, fibers, and questioned documents as they relate to crime scenes and assist investigations. This website is an excellent place to start a research project in forensic science.

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR NETWORK (http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/index .html) For those who are interested in learning the process of crime-scene investigation, this site provides detailed guidelines and information regarding crime-scene response and the collection and preservation of evidence. For example, information concerning the packaging and analysis of bloodstains, seminal fluids, hairs, fibers, paint, glass, firearms, documents, and fingerprints can be found through this website. It explains the importance of inspecting the crime scene and the impact forensic evidence has on the investigation.

CRIMES AND CLUES (http://crimeandclues.com/) Users interested in learning about the forensic aspects of fingerprinting will find this to be a useful and informative website. The site covers the history of fingerprints, as well as subjects pertaining to the development of latent fingerprints. The user will also find links to other websites covering a variety of subjects pertaining to crime- scene investigation, documentation of the crime scene, and expert testimony.

QUESTIONED-DOCUMENT EXAMINATION (http://www.qdewill.com/) This basic, informative web page answers frequently asked questions concerning document examination, explains the application of typical document examinations, and details the basic facts and theory of handwriting and signatures. There are also links to noted document examination cases that present the user with real-life applications of forensic document examination.

WEBEXTRA 1.4 An Introduction to Forensic Firearm Identification

WEBEXTRA 1.5 Carpenter’s Forensic Science Resources

WEBEXTRA 1.6 Crime Scene Investigator Network

WEBEXTRA 1.7 Crimes and Clues

WEBEXTRA 1.8 Questioned-Document Examination

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

In its broadest definition, forensic science is the application of science to criminal and civil laws. This book emphasizes the ap- plication of science to the criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system. Forensic science owes its origins to individuals such as Bertillon, Galton, Lattes, Goddard, Osborn, and Locard, who developed the principles and techniques needed to identify or compare physical evidence.

The development of crime laboratories in the United States has been characterized by rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional planning and coordination. At present, ap- proximately four hundred public crime laboratories operate at var- ious levels of government—federal, state, county, and municipal.

The technical support provided by crime laboratories can be assigned to five basic services. The physical science unit uses the principles of chemistry, physics, and geology to identify and compare physical evidence. The biology unit uses knowledge of biological sciences to investigate blood samples, body fluids, hair, and fiber samples. The firearms unit inves- tigates discharged bullets, cartridge cases, shotgun shells, and ammunition. The document examination unit performs hand- writing analysis and other questioned-document examination. Finally, the photography unit uses specialized photographic techniques to record and examine physical evidence. Some crime laboratories offer the optional services of toxicology, fingerprint analysis, polygraph administration, voiceprint anal- ysis, and crime-scene investigation and evidence collection.

A forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the princi- ples and techniques of the physical and natural sciences to the analysis of the many types of evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation. A forensic scientist may also provide expert court testimony. An expert witness is called on to evaluate evidence based on specialized training and experi- ence and to express an opinion as to the significance of the findings. Also, forensic scientists participate in training law enforcement personnel in proper recognition, collection, and preservation of physical evidence.

The Frye v. United States decision set guidelines for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence into the courtroom. To meet the Frye standard, the evidence in ques- tion must be “generally accepted” by the scientific commu- nity. However, in the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that the Frye standard is not an absolute prerequisite to the ad- missibility of scientific evidence. Trial judges were said to be ultimately responsible as “gatekeepers” for the admissibility and validity of scientific evidence presented in their courts.

A number of special forensic science services are avail- able to the law enforcement community to augment the ser- vices of the crime laboratory. These services include forensic psychiatry, forensic odontology, forensic engineering, and forensic computer and digital analysis.

chapter summary

review questions

1. The application of science to law describes ___________.

2. The fictional exploits of ___________ excited the imagination of an emerging generation of forensic sci- entists and criminal investigators.

3. A system of personal identification using a series of body measurements was first devised by ___________.

4. ___________ is responsible for developing the first statistical study proving the uniqueness of fingerprints.

5. The Italian scientist ___________ devised the first workable procedure for typing dried bloodstains.

6. The comparison microscope became an indispensable tool of firearms examination through the efforts of ___________.

7. Early efforts at applying scientific principles to docu- ment examination are associated with ___________.

8. The application of science to criminal investigation was advocated by the Austrian magistrate ___________.

9. One of the first functional crime laboratories was formed in Lyons, France, under the direction of ___________.

10. The transfer of evidence that occurs when two objects come in contact with one another was a concept first advocated by the forensic scientist ___________.

11. The first forensic laboratory in the United States was created in 1923 by the ___________ Police Department.

12. The state of ___________ is an excellent example of a geographical area in the United States that has created a system of integrated regional and satellite laboratories.

13. In contrast to the United States, Britain’s crime labo- ratory system is characterized by a national system of ___________ laboratories.

14. The increasing demand for ___________ analyses has been the single most important factor in the recent ex- pansion of crime laboratory services in the United States.

15. Four important federal agencies offering forensic ser- vices are ___________, ___________, ___________, and ___________.

16. A decentralized system of crime laboratories cur- rently exists in the United States under the auspices of various governmental agencies at the ___________, ___________, ___________, and ___________ levels of government.

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 25

17. The application of chemistry, physics, and geology to the identification and comparison of crime-scene evi- dence is the function of the ___________ unit of a crime laboratory.

18. The examination of blood, hairs, fibers, and botanical materials is conducted in the ___________ unit of a crime laboratory.

19. The examination of bullets, cartridge cases, shotgun shells, and ammunition of all types is the responsibility of the ___________ unit.

20. The examination of body fluids and organs for drugs and poisons is a function of the ___________ unit.

21. The ___________ unit dispatches trained personnel to the scene of a crime to retrieve evidence for laboratory examination.

22. The “general acceptance” principle, which serves as a criterion for the judicial admissibility of scientific evi- dence, was set forth in the case of ___________.

23. In the case of ___________, the Supreme Court ruled that in assessing the admissibility of new and unique sci- entific tests, the trial judge did not have to rely solely on the concept of “general acceptance.”

24. True or False: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael restricted the

“gatekeeping” role of a trial judge only to scientific tes- timony. ___________

25. A Florida case that exemplifies the flexibility and wide discretion that the trial judge has in matters of scientific inquiry is ___________.

26. A(n) ___________ is a person who can demonstrate a par- ticular skill or has knowledge in a trade or profession that will help the court determine the truth of the matter at issue.

27. True or False: The expert witness’s courtroom demeanor may play an important role in deciding what weight the court will assign to his or her testimony. ___________

28. True or False: The testimony of an expert witness incor- porates his or her personal opinion relating to a matter he or she has either studied or examined. ___________

29. The ability of the investigator to recognize and collect crime-scene evidence properly depends on the amount of ___________ received from the crime laboratory.

30. True or False: In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ad- dressed issues relating to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in the case of Crawford v. Washington. ___________

31. The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision ___________ addressed the practice of using affidavits in lieu of in- person testimony by forensic examiners.

1. Most crime labs in the United States are funded and operated by the government and provide services free to police and prosecutors. Great Britain, however, uses private laboratories that charges fees for their services and keep any profits they make. Suggest potential strengths and weaknesses of each system.

2. Police investigating an apparent suicide collect the following items at the scene: a note purportedly writ- ten by the victim, a revolver bearing very faint finger- prints, and traces of skin and blood under the victim’s fingernails. What units of the crime laboratory will examine each piece of evidence?

3. List at least three advantages of having an evidence- collection unit process a crime scene instead of a pa- trol officer or detective.

4. What legal issue was raised on appeal by the defense in Carl Coppolino’s Florida murder trial? What court ruling is most relevant to the decision to reject the ap- peal? Explain your answer.

5. A Timeline of Forensic Science The following images depict different types of evidence or techniques for ana- lyzing evidence. Place the images in order pertaining to the time in history (least recent to most recent) at which each type of evidence or technique was first introduced. Do this using the letters assigned to the images.

application and critical thinking

(a) (b) (c) (d)

G eo

ff D

an n/

D or

li ng

K in

de rs

le y

M ed

ia L

ib ra

D or

li ng

K in

de rs

le y

M ed

ia L

ib ra

F un

da m

en ta

l P

ho to

gr ap

hs , N

Y C

Ja m

es S

te id

l/ S

hu tt

er st

oc k

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

26 CHAPTER 1

G et

ty I

m ag

(e) (f) (g)

6. Evidence Processing at the Crime Laboratory You are the evidence technician at the front desk of the state crime lab. You receive the following items of evidence to check in on a very busy day. You must indicate which unit each piece of evidence should be sent to for analysis. Your crime lab has a criminalistics (physical science) unit, a drug unit, a biology unit, a firearms unit, a document ex- amination unit, a toxicology unit, a latent fingerprinting unit, an anthropology unit, and a forensic computer and digital analysis unit.

(a) ___________

(b) ___________

(d) ___________

(e) ___________

(f) ___________

(g) ___________

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

G et

ty I

m ag

es I

nc . –

H ul

to n

A rc

hi ve

P ho

to s

G et

ty I

m ag

G et

ty I

m ag

M ic

ha el

G ad

om sk

i/ S

ci en

ce S

ou rc

M ik

ae l

K ar

ls so

n/ A

rr es

ti ng

I m

ag es

G eo

rg e

W hi

te ly

/G et

ty I

m ag

G et

ty I

m ag

es , I

nc .—

ho to

di sc

./ R

oy al

ty F

re e

C or

bi s

A nd

y C

ra w

fo rd

/D or

li ng

K in

de rs

le y

M ed

ia L

ib ra

H ae

m in

R ap

p/ S

hu tt

er st

oc k

(h) ___________

(i) ___________

(j) ___________

(k) ___________

(l) ___________

(m) ___________

IS B

N : 9

7 8

-1 -3

2 3

-1 6

7 4

5 -8

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

INTRODUCTION 27

(i) (j)

(k)

H ug

h T

hr el

fa ll

/A la

m y

G ar

y O

m bl

er /D

or li

ng K

in de

rs le

y M

ed ia

L ib

ra ry

Case Study: Using the Internet and Chapter 1 of your text, research the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

Miranda And Hinckley

Assignment 2: Gang Stories

Information On PREA

Experience

Our mission

Latest Posts

Talk to us...