LOS ANGELES FORENSIC SCIENCE CLOSED CASES

Los Angeles Forensic Science Closed Cases

Table of Content

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION3

Overview3

Purpose5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW6

Background6

Increase in Crime6

Forensic Science Profession8

Reliability of Forensic Testing10

Forensic Science in the Popular Culture13

Defense Access to Scientific Results14

Forensic Science: Scientific, Public, and Political Issues15

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY18

Articles18

Randolph N. Jonakait “The Need for Regulation”18

Daubert Articles19

Daubert World “Asking The Gatekeepers”20

Daubert Evolves24

Context Effect25

Conclusion27

References28

Bibliography31

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Overview

There have been several significant social, legal, and scientific changes in the criminal justice system and the forensic sciences since the 1970s that have dramatically altered the contours of the law science interface. While this Paper highlights several scientific and technical breakthroughs that have fundamentally enhanced the types of assistance that forensic science provides to the criminal justice system, its primary emphasis will be on the key legal, cultural, professional, and organizational changes that have shaped how science is used in today's criminal justice system. DNA typing is, without question, the single greatest forensic scientific breakthrough in the past century but there have been several other key changes, such as the following: landmark Supreme Court decisions have modified how our courts evaluate and admit scientific evidence; professional initiatives have addressed the credentials of forensic examiners, the quality of laboratory operations, and the accuracy of scientific evidence testing; and legal and popular culture has created an unprecedented awareness of, and appetite for, forensic science (Maurice Possley et al. 2004).

Still, we cannot disregard factors that seriously limit the full usage of the forensic sciences by our justice system. We pour resources into DNA typing but fail to devote the necessary funds to the collection and analysis of other types of evidence in crime laboratories. Backlogs of evidence awaiting analysis in crime laboratories slow the judicial process. We also have recurring reports of poorly trained and equipped forensic scientists who make errors in their examinations of evidence and indications of other examiners who shape their results to satisfy the desires of parties to a case. We have created standards that, if followed, can lift up the quality of forensic science, but our legal institutions have failed to mandate that the standards be satisfied by examiners who submit their reports and give testimony in our courts. In fact, it is only logical that high scientific standards should be invoked before scientific evidence is allowed in court, but judges and lawyers have not insisted that those criteria be met in every case (Marc S. Reisch, 1997).

It has been recognized for decades that scientists and lawyers do not think and reason alike and that they employ different value systems in their treatment and interpretation of evidence. The adversarial legal process, with its high premium on winning cases, allows advocates to employ and promote dubious science if it serves their clients' needs and helps them prevail in the courtroom.

Purpose

This study will address a number of major forces that have influenced this dynamic field over the past thirty years, and it will offer suggestions as to where we need to concentrate our efforts to ensure that scientific ...