The Importance Of Forensic Evidence: The Admissibility Of Evidence

Before forensic evidence is presented in a trial, it must be deemed admissible (Imwinkelried, 1998). The admissibility of evidence is determined by its reliability, its relevance and its legitimacy. The evidence must be screened against the trial court’s Rules of Evidence. The trial court is the deciding factor on the admissibility or inadmissibility of any forensic evidence. The Rules of Evidence are utilized by the courts to determine if either side (Defense or Prosecution), have presented any evidence that may be irrelevant to the case at hand (Imwinkelried, 1998). This means the evidence presented must be absent of prejudice and hearsay.
Discussion
As potential, future Forensic Scientist, it is important to understand the system of checks

Direct evidence is possibly the hardest to establish since it requires no further justification. Eyewitness testimony, is generally presented as direct evidence, however, several cases have been overturned that were based on eyewitness testimony that were later disproved by DNA evidence (Netzel, Keily & Bell, 2014). Kenneth Kagonyera was convicted in 2001 on eyewitness testimony in North Carolina (Schneider, 2013). Mr. Kagonyera was allegedly coerced into falsely confessing. In 2011, due to the diligence of The Innocence Project, he was exonerated by DNA evidence and the eyewitness recanted their testimony (Schneider, 2013).
Forensic evidence is generally considered circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can only infer that a defendant was at some point present at a crime scene (Netzel, Keily & Bell, 2014).
Circumstantial evidence can in no way conclusively address a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Barry Laughman was convicted of the rape and murder of his elderly neighbor in 1988 in Pennsylvania. The prosecution knew that the killer had type B blood (Dervan & Edkins, 2012). Mr. Laughman tested as type A. The prosecution, fully aware of the evidence, considered it only circumstantial evidence and not enough to exonerate Mr. Laughman. It was not until 2004 that additional DNA evidence was discovered that collectively, with the initial blood evidence, helped to exonerate Mr. Laughman (Dervan

Therefore someone who has the special knowledge or experience should be allowed to testify. This is a fundamental case law for Forensic Scientists, for it is the case that introduced expert witness testimony (Imwinkelried, 1998).
Additionally, this case also stipulated to the admissibility of scientific evidence known as the general acceptance criteria (Imwinkelried, 1998). This ruling stated that evidence must be generally accepted in the particular scientific field of study before it can be introduced and accepted as testimony (Imwinkelried, 1998). Frye was speaking specifically to the validity of the polygraph test, but it is still applicable today as forensics are always on the cutting edge of technology (Netzel, Keily & Bell, 2014).
Therefore if the Scientist’ specific jurisdiction still utilizes the Frye standard, that technology would have to be generally accepted in a significant portion of that scientific