STEPHEN ROOR DIE HARD TRILOGY FULL
For example, in its first full year of operation, the FBI laboratory processed fewer than 1000 cases. When initially established, crime laboratories handled a modest number of cases. 6 Handwriting comparisons, trace evidence examinations, and serological testing of blood and semen were added later. At its inception, the FBI laboratory staff included only firearms identification and fingerprint examination. 5 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory came online in 1932. 4 This case preceded the establishment of the first American crime laboratory, which was created in Los Angeles in 1923. The first reported fingerprint case was decided in 1911. Īn understanding of the current issues requires some appreciation of the past. National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009), available at. Berger, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony, in this manual.ģ. The identification of a substance as heroin, for example, does not individuate, whereas a fingerprint identification does.Ģ. Kirk, The Ontogeny of Criminalistics, 54 J. Some forensic scientists believe the word individualization is more accurate than identification. Part XII addresses procedural issues-pretrial discovery and access to defense experts.ġ. Part XI considers recurrent problems, including the clarity of expert testimony, limitations on its scope, and restrictions on closing arguments. 3 Parts V through X examine specific identification techniques: (1) fingerprint analysis, (2) questioned document examination, (3) firearms and toolmark identification, (4) bite mark comparison, and (5) microscopic hair analysis. Part IV focuses on the 2009 National Research Council (NRC) report on forensic science. Part III discusses the impact of the advent of DNA analysis and the Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert decision, 2 developments that prompted a reappraisal of the trustworthiness of testimony by forensic identification experts. Moreover, some techniques are valuable because they eliminate possible sources.įollowing this introduction, Part II of this guide sketches a brief history of the development of forensic expertise and crime laboratories. 1 Other techniques are useful because they narrow possible sources to a discrete category based upon what are known as “class characteristics” (as opposed to “individual characteristics”). Some forensic disciplines attempt to individuate and thus attribute physical evidence to a particular source-a person, object, or location. In a broad sense, the category includes trace evidence such as the analysis of hairs, fibers, soil, glass, and wood. Bite mark analysis can be added to this category, although it developed within the field of forensic dentistry as an adjunct of dental identification and is not conducted by crime laboratories. These examinations consist of comparing a known exemplar with evidence collected at a crime scene or from a suspect. Shoe and tire prints also fall within this large pattern evidence domain. Proficiency studies comparing experts’ performance to chanceįorensic identification expertise encompasses fingerprint, handwriting, and firearms (“ballistics”), and toolmark comparisons, all of which are used by crime laboratories to associate or dissociate a suspect with a crime. National Research Council Report on Forensic ScienceĢ. Reappraisal of Forensic Identification Expertise Development of Forensic Identification Techniques Peterson, D.Crim., is Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics, California State University, Los Angeles.
STEPHEN ROOR DIE HARD TRILOGY TRIAL
Professor of Law and Director of Trial Advocacy, University of California, Davis. Weatherhead Professor of Law, and Distinguished University Professor, Case Western Reserve University.Įdward J. Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise
0 kommentar(er)
