Albert S. Osborn (1858 - 1946) is a pioneer in forensic science that was involved and developed all of his time to the study of evidence in questioned documents. Question documents involves with handwriting. So, the job of the experts is to find out how, when, and by whom certain documents were prepared. They also search and involve with dating the documents, ink identification, copy, and forgery - copying someone's signature. Albert Osborn has started to devote his life into the field of question document around 1910. Albert S. Osborn is the first generation of Osborn family practice that has been qualified as an expert in courts. He has testified on the subject of original documents in both civil and criminal cases for the United States Government and many states of law enforcement agencies. Such states as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York are states that often used Osborn as an expert on the subject of disputed documents. One of the famous cases was the Lindbergh kidnapping trial or also known as State of New Jersey v. Hauptmann (O'Brien & Sullivan, p. 186). This case took place in 1935 and both Albert S. Osborn and his son, Albert D. Osborn, testified in the case on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, many scientists and experts consider Albert S. Osborn the father of examination of disputed documents in the United States. In 1910, he wrote and published his first significant book, Questioned Documents. Furthermore, in 1922 he authored another important text, The Problem of Proof. These two famous books are still considered the main references for document examiners (Saferstein, p.5). In 1913, Osborn have had an idea of creation of an unofficial program for the interchange of concepts and research information where examiners will discuss different questions relating to the subject of field. First, Osborn invites Mr. Stein and later on, many other specialists were added to the program. These examiners learn from Mr. Osborn a large amount of information. They have learned that in order to uncover successfully all efforts, the examiners of the documents must obtain certain techniques. "Some of the techniques are to know to utilize the techniques of microscopy, photography, and even such analytical methods as chromatography. Alterations of documents through overwriting, erasures, or the more obvious crossing out of words must be recognized and characterized by the examiner as efforts intended to alter or obscure the original meaning of a document" (O'Brien & Sullivan, p.
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
Authors Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded the innocence project at a law school in New York City, which has assisted in the exoneration of an astonishing number of innocent individuals. As legal aid lawyers, they blithely engaged in conflicts that implicated
From the early days, with little literary reference material, to the current day, with substantially more, but still insufficient formation, the science of fingerprint identification has managed to maintain its credibility and usefulness. Although, academic institutions have yet to recognize the field as an applied science and include it in the curricula, which would provide directed research and literary reference, in libraries. Without this academic recognition, progress in the field of fingerprint is destined to be sluggish. Description of fingerprint identification as a forensic science’ or an ~app1ied science’ in no way implies that is not a reliable science. Fingerprint identification, correctly understood and applied, is just as scientifically valid and reliable as any other science and, indeed, more accurate than many. The fingerprint expert applies knowledge gained through training and experience to reach a conclusion. The many uses of fingerprint identification range from criminal investigation to non-criminal matters such as deceased, missing persons and disaster victim identification. Fingerprint identification has been used in the court systems for many years. Yet there are those who that still try to challenge fingerprint science and the experts in the court of law by a Daubert Hearing. In this paper, Daubert Hearing is define and detail outing background of the cases, the Government preparation, the Testimony from both sides, the judge’s verdict and finally, Mitchell’s second trial on this case.
At least 99 percent of the time, forensic science is reliable and deem accurate. Although four experts that matched Brandon Mayfield’s fingerprint to the fingerprint on a bag at the crime scene, they in fact misidentified the evidence and Spanish police found out that the latent fingerprint actually belong to be an Algerian. This shown that forensic experts and attorneys can definitely be wrong; furthermore, it convey that not all evidence presented in the case is subjected to be infallible and there is a possibility for committed error. Leah Bartos, a UC Berkley graduate student with a Journalism degree, conducted an experiment to understand the process of becoming a certified forensic consultant. She had no prior knowledge in the forensic discipline, but became certified after she passed the open book exam and sent ACFET her bachelor degree, resume, and references. The ACFET exam have a 99 percent pass rate; therefore, it is criticized for creditability of its certified graduate and branded a diploma milling organization for-profit. Attorney can argue the weakness of the forensic evidence presented, hence forensic science call for bad science and can definitely be misuse in our adversarial legal
This concept now embedded in the Federal Rules of Evidence can trace its philosophical underpinnings in prerevolutionary England. Before the 17th century, English courts had very few limitations on what evidence could be admitted into court.3 This court system, which was created in the wake of Norman invasion in 1066, did not ...
In the criminal justice system, the best chance of a fair trial and justice lies within cases that include physical evidence. Physical evidence, whether fibers, fingerprints, or DNA, can give a jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Physical evidence can convict a criminal, or it can free an innocent man. It can bring closure to families and to the law enforcement that work the cases. The following cases will show what physical evidence does in a criminal trial and the vast impact it can make. For each case I will examine how the physical evidence was important to the case and whether or not it could have made more of a difference if the presentation of the evidence were different. The five cases are: the Mosley case, the Warren case, the Chandler case, the Frediani case, and the Swift Case.
Forensics is a scientific method of gathering and examining information about a crime. It is used in the law for figuring out when, where, and what happened at the scene of the crime. Mystery writers must use forensics when writing about crime solving. This draws in the readers because of how realistic the mystery seems. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s short story “The Red-Headed League,” the author shows his perspective on justice while exemplifying his linear and detailed style, with the main character depicting the story in chronological order and the detective using deductive reasoning to solve the crime.
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
Altogether, sixteen document examiners had either testified or were willing to testify against Hauptmann. The Lindbergh kidnapping is historic in the fact that virtually every handwriting expert, at the time, had weighed in with the prosecution. Some of the examiners included: Albert S. Osborn, Albert D. Osborn, Elbridge W. Stein, and John E Tyrrell. With the review of the ransom notes, this case proved exactly how important questioned documents can be to a case. Without the help of Albert S. Osborn, and the other handwriting experts, who knows how the case would have concluded. The Lindbergh case also changed how we look at forensic botany since there was no soil collection of where the body was found. The identification of the wood used, the physical marks left by tools on the wood, and comparisons of the wood structure were also key components to the further development of forensic botany. On February 11, 1935 Hauptmann was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death. Hauptmann died in the electric chair on April 3, 1936. At the time of the sentencing, virtually no one considered Hauptmann to be innocent. In the aftermath of the crime, the most notorious of the 1930s, kidnapping was made a federal
Forensic psychology is an area of psychology that has been rapidly gaining popularity in recent years. Entertainment media’s fascination with the intersection of crime and psychology has fueled the growing interest in the field. According to Jane Tyler Ward, PhD, forensic psychology can be defined as psychology that “emphasizes the application of research and experimentation in other areas of psychology to the legal arena.” Although forensic psychology is popular right now, it was not until 1962 that a court case set the precedent that properly trained psychologists could provide expert testimony (Page 20). Additionally, forensic psychology was not APA (American Psychological Association) certified until 2001 (Page 16). The field of forensic
On the evening of March 1st, 1932, famous aviator Charles Lindbergh and his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh put their 20 month old baby, Charles “Charlie” Augustus Lindbergh Jr to bed on the second floor of the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, New Jersey. When the child’s nurse, Betty Gow, went to check on Charlie, he was gone. Gow then reported the child’s absence to his parents. The police were contacted immediately and the search for the baby began. While trying to get in touch with the suspect who was leaving handwritten notes, the Lindbergh’s were very close to receiving their precious child. On May 12th, 1932, 72 days after the kidnapping, a decomposed body of a baby was found in the woods near the Lindbergh house. The child was dead and was predicted to have died on the night of the kidnapping as a result of a fractured skull. Charles Lindbergh was able to identify the baby as his own. Now the kidnapping had also become an immoral murder. Bruno Hauptmann is proven guilty through physical evidence, some which is found at the crime scene, his own physical features, and his handwriting. Additionally, his residency and money, specifically gold certificates assist in determining his innocence. Lastly, the testimonies at Hauptmann’s trial lead to one clear statement at last. Through an examination of physical evidence and case details, it can be concluded that Bruno Richard Hauptmann was responsible for the kidnapping of Charles Augustus Lindbergh.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Forensic science has been in practice for centuries; the first textbook on forensic science was printed in China during the 1200's; in the early 1800's, a technique was developed the first test to identify arsenic in the blood stream; the early 1900's lead to the development of using fingerprinting to identify victims and suspects. While these discoveries where important in criminal investigation, they were only the beginning. Only recently has forensic science significantly refined its techniques and accuracy. Today scientists can locate, identify and trace the tiniest of particles, and identify victims and suspects, beyond a reasonable doubt through DNA analysis. This evolution in forensic science is a prosecutor's dream; while a defense attorney's nightmare. Forensic science has made great strides.
In the earliest part of the last century (1900-1930) such scientific analysis of firearms and tool-mark identification became a recognized science in several worldwide judicial systems due to vast research by pioneering examiners such as Colonel Calvin Goddard, a professor of police science at Northwestern. In 1925 Goddard wrote an article for the Army Ordnance titled "Forensic Ballistics" in which he described the use of the comparison microscope regarding firearms investigations, in April of that same year, Goddard along with several others established the Bureau of Forensic Ballistics, which was formed to provide firearms identification services throughout America. Goddard researched, authored and spoke extensively...