False or Misleading Forensic Evidence is one of the main contributing factors to wrongful convictions. The National Registry of Exonerations defines it as forensic information that was based on unreliable or unproven methods, caused by errors in forensic testing, expressed with exaggerated and misleading confidence, or fraudulent/fabricated. Bonventre, pg. 78, pg. 78. 3) The notion that forensic evidence is immune to error or bias is one that researchers continue to disprove. The prevalence of false or misleading forensic evidence is due to a variety of factors, such as cognitive biases and use of bad forensic techniques. Psychological biases, such as confirmation and contextual bias, can affect the interpretation of evidence, leading to false …show more content…
Also, contextual bias refers to the influence of contextual information on forensic decision-making, leading to wrong assessments of the evidence. Dror & Charlton, 2006). In several cases where firearm analysis was used, contextual bias may lead forensic practitioners to overstate the significance of ballistic evidence, which many times results in wrongful convictions. For many years, specific techniques such as bite mark analysis, toolmark/firearm analysis, foot impressions, and many others have been under fire due to the lack of scientific foundation and inaccuracies. Many of these techniques have been abolished and are starting to be used less and less due to this high level of error. Specifically, bite mark analysis compares the marks found on the victim’s body with dental impressions of suspects to identify the perpetrator. This method has been around for a long time because dentists claim that only one set of teeth from a specific person could cause the marks on the victim’s
In the Forensic Case #356228, skeletal remains of both human and animal were discovered in a hunting area. The skeletal remains were of potential victims named as either Robert Rutherford or Stephen Morton. Robert Rutherford, potential victim #1, was an African American, 65 years or age, had a pacemaker, carried a Gerber 650 knife, had unknown religious affiliations, and was 5’ft 6”inches tall. Potential victim #2, was Stephen Morton, a Caucasian 40 years of age, had a heart condition, was a hunter in the same area, also had unknown religious affiliations, carried a Gerber 650 knife, and was 5’ ft 7” inches tall.
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
...idence in the conviction of Melanie McGuire. According to Champod (2004), Beth Dunton may have skipped important steps necessary to collecting fingerprints from the trash bags. If fingerprints had been collected from the trash bags, this could have cleared Melanie or added to the mountain of evidence against her. According to Rossmo (2009), all of the circumstantial evidence gathered by investigators could have been declared coincidental. There was no “smoking gun” to convict Melanie. Despite possible errors, the investigative team was successful in remaining free of bias being that the evidence collected by two different investigative teams led to Melanie McGuire as the suspect and ultimately to her conviction. Human error is inevitable while conducting investigation, but ultimately a jury of peers found Melanie McGuire guilty of the alleged crimes (Glatt, 2008).
Fulero, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2009). Forensic psychology. (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
Another factor associated with wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification. The Innocence Project identifies eyewitness misidentification as the single most important factor leading to wrongful convictions. Eyewitness misidentification is often an error due to witnesses being under high pressure, witnesses focusing on the weapon more than the offender, and police procedures when receiving an identification statement from a victim. A study
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law. New York: Worth Publishers.
The justice system depends on eyewitness evidence to convict offenders. Eyewitness is a difficult task to achieve in the justice system. According to Wise, Dauphinais, & Safer (2007), in 2002 one million offenders were convicted as felons in America. Out of those one million offenders, 5000 of them were innocent in 2002 (Dauphinais, 2007). The Ohio Criminal Justice survey states that 1 out of 200 felony criminal cases is a wrongful conviction (Dauphinais et al., 2007). According to Dauphinais et al., (2007), Dripps said that eyewitness error is a huge factor in cases of wrong convictions. A study conducted in 1987 indicated that in roughly 80,000 criminal cases, eyewitness error was the only sole evidence against the defendant
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Gould, Jon B. and Leo, Richard A., One Hundred Years Later: Wrongful Convictions After a Century of Research (2010). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2010; Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2010-28.
This same article examines the history of DNA evidence and acknowledges that when evidence was first introduced to the courts that the new type of identification was initially accepted without any challenges, however, critics quickly contended that DNA tests were problematic because of the reliability and the validity of probative value of the evidence. For example, DNA exoneration cases suggest that errors in forensic identification led to a high number of wrongful convictions and concerns that media coverage portrayals of forensic science evidence on popular television shows leads jurors to unfairly weigh DNA evidence while making their decision about the facts of a trial (Carrell, 2008). Moreover, in recent DNA exoneration cases the courts and jurors had difficulty analyzing the testimony of the experts on forensic identification evidence. According to the article, in 86 DNA exoneration cases, forensic science testing errors were the second leading cause of wrongful conviction, falling behind wrongful eyewitness misidentification (Carrell,
Greenfield, D. (2007). Introduction to forensic psychology. issues and controversies in crime and justice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35(2), 201-201-204,105-106.
The implausibility of the various methods of the detection of deception poses an immense threat to the innocent. When we apply these results to a defendant on trial, these "false results" can be extremely detrimental to the case. False results can possibly allow the guilty to be liberated and the innocent to become incarcerated. The only way we can apply these tests and use the results as court evidence is if we can make the testing procedures 100% reliable. But, as research shows us, because of the numerous influential environmental, psychological, social, and physiological factors that can damage the validity of the results, the test results will remain obsolete in the eyes of the court.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law