The collection, custody and preservation of forensic evidence is a vital aspect of evidence integrity, without proper adherence to these procedures, crucial evidence that could potentially have great impact on a court case could be rendered useless. In the case of criminal proceedings, a skilled defence lawyer will look to scrutinise every step taken by forensic practitioners’ involved within the case in regards to the continuity of the evidence, in doing this they attempt to undermine the practitioner’s ability to properly carry out strict evidence collection, protection and preservation procedures and also look to find fault in the techniques they used to carry out these procedures.
Collection of evidence is usually a term designated to refer to the collection of physical evidence, government agencies such as police or environmental protection departments will have their own methods for the collection, storage and conservation of physical evidence and it is the responsibility of forensic personnel to adhere to these set guidelines. General principles which are shared amongst various agencies include, the creation of contemporaneous notes, recording the collection of evidence via photographing, videotaping and/or audiotapes, preserving the crime scene by sealing off the location and only allowing designated personnel to enter, avoiding contamination of the crime scene by investigators through the use of full body covering and also preventing cross-contamination with the scene and any suspects.
An imperative aspect of the collection of physical evidence is the legal considerations involved with obtaining evidence, the law sets out strict guidelines which describe when evidence can be collected, who it can be obtained fr...
... middle of paper ...
...y use the evidence to help uncover the truth.
Works Cited
Saferstein, R 2011, Criminalistics: an introduction to forensic science, 10th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 43
Anderson, T 2008, Defend yourself: facing a charge in court, 2nd edn, The Federation Press, Sydney, NSW, p. 7, viewed 25/03/2012, ?>
Michigan v. Tyler et al (1978) 436 U.S. 499, viewed 25/03/2012,
White, P 1992, Crime scene to court: the essentials of forensic science, Royal Society of Chemistry, London, p. 20-33.
Chain of Custody n.d., viewed 25/03/2012,
Wright, J. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice. (p. 9.1). San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCRJ201.12.1/sections/sec9.1
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The Trace Evidence Unit is known to examine the largest variety of evidence types and uses the biggest range of analytical methods of any unit. materials are compared with standards or known samples to determine whether or not they share any common characteristics. In this paper I will discuss the different kinds of trace evidence and how crime scene investigators use it to solve cases and convict criminals. Trace evidence was first discovered by Edmond Locard. Edmond Locard was born in 1877, and founded the Lyon’s Institute of Criminalistics.
Schmalleger, Frank, Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education Inc. , 2010, Page 387
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.
Bartol, Curt R., and Anne M. Bartol. Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behavior. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2008. Print.
Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
Review, PubMed PMID: 19543886. Saferstein, R. (2011). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science (10th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
In order for evidence to be used in court, it must be collected and tested by valid methods. The collection of evidence must be completed carefully and properly to prevent cross-contaminating or destroying the evidence. Before evidence can be collected at a crime scene, the area must be secured to ensure everyone stays safe and that the evidence is not destroyed. After the scene is secured by all proper measures, the collection process can begin. The first items to be collected are those that are transient, fragile or perishable. Hair, fibers and small shards of glass are all
Andrus, R., Bailey, J., Sprague, T., Springer, F., Tulleners, F., Wiersema, S., et al. (n.d.). Crime Scene
Forensic Psychology, which is occasionally referred to as Legal Psychology, originally made its debut in the late 1800’s. A Harvard Professor, Professor Munsterberg, introduced the idea of psychology and law with his book, On the Witness Stand in 1908. Since the inception of the idea of psychology and law there have been proponents, as well as though that have spoken against the theories proposed by Munsterberg’s, along with other scientists, theorists, and psychologists that believed that Forensic Psychology had no standing to be linked to topics of law. This literature review will attempt to identify scholarly articles that trace the origins and the movement that led to Forensics Psychology becoming a specialty within the field of psychology. I will also attempt to explain What is Forensic Psychology as well as the part it plays within the legal system.
Forensic Science, recognized as Forensics, is the solicitation of science to law to understand evidences for crime investigation. Forensic scientists are investigators that collect evidences at the crime scene and analyse it uses technology to reveal scientific evidence in a range of fields. Physical evidence are included things that can be seen, whether with the naked eye or through the use of magnification or other analytical tools. Some of this evidence is categorized as impression evidence2.In this report I’ll determine the areas of forensic science that are relevant to particular investigation and setting out in what method the forensic science procedures I have recognized that would be useful for the particular crime scene.
The transitional growth in the forensic science sector has not been without challenges. Though the world has experienced increased capabilities and scientific knowledge, which has led to faster investigations and results, many forensic experts have argued that forensic laboratory testing, in the light of 21st century technological advancements, is yet to meet the expected rate in quick available testing and analysis (Mennell & Shaw, 2006). This is with respect to the growing rate of crime and the high demand of quick crime scene testing and analysis. In the science of crime scene, analysis and interpretation of evidence is majorly dependent on forensic science, highlighting the change in the role of forensic sciences (Tjin-A-Tsoi, 2013). In the business of forensic science, time is beginning to play important role in the evidence testing and analysis which is becoming crucial in reducing ...
The process of gathering evidence largely depends on the role of discretion by the police. Once police have decided to pursue a reported crime, they then begin the process of gathering evidence. To ensure that the process of gathering evidence is lawful, the police must follow the procedure outlined in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which describes the manner in which evidence can be collected. This act imposes certain limits on the way police can gather evidence and the types of evidence that can be used. The Act is able to protect the rights of citizens by making it a requirement for the police to gain necessary legal documentation, such as search warrants, in order to obtain some types of evidence and thus, protects the rights of ordinary systems. In more recent times, the use of technology has come to play a major role in the gathering of evidence and with this comes complications in the law. New technologies in relation to the criminal investigation process are mainly in reference to DNA evidence, genetic material that can place a suspect at the scene of a crime. The introduction of DNA evidence into the criminal investigation process has been extremely effective in achieving justice, as it is able to secure convictions. Initially, there were some setbacks to the use of DNA evidence