Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:58 pm
Time: 11:58 pm
Results for criminal evidence
16 results foundAuthor: Innocence Project Title: Reevaluating Lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of a Misidentification Summary: Eyewitness identification is among the most prevalent and persuasive evidence used in courtrooms. Eyewitness testimony that directly implicates the defendant is compelling evidence in any trial, but it is not error-proof. Jurors may not realize that confident, trustworthy witnesses can be mistaken. A single witness’s identification can be enough to obtain a conviction. Eyewitness identification also plays a key role in shaping investigations. In the immediate aftermath of a crime, an erroneous identification can derail police investigations by putting focus on an innocent person while the actual perpetrator is still on the streets. Once a witness identifies the suspect to police, whether or not that person actually committed the crime, investigators may stop looking for other suspects. Over 175 people have been wrongfully convicted based, in part, on eyewitness misidentification and later proven innocent through DNA testing. The total number of wrongful convictions involving eyewitness misidentifications exceeds this figure, given the widespread use of eyewitness testimony and the limited number of cases in which DNA evidence is available for post-conviction testing. Experts estimate that physical evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing exists in just 5-10% of all criminal cases. Even among that small fraction of cases, many will never have the benefit of DNA testing because the evidence has been lost or destroyed. DNA exonerations don’t just show a piece of the problem – they are a microcosm of the criminal justice system. Decades of empirical, peer-reviewed social science research reaffirms what DNA exonerations have proven to be true: human memory is fallible. Memory is not fixed, it can be influenced and altered. After the crime and throughout the criminal investigation, the witness attempts to piece together what happened. His memory is evidence and must be handled as carefully as the crime scene itself to avoid forever altering it. The Innocence Project identifies the common causes of wrongful convictions across DNA exoneration cases and has found eyewitness misidentification to be the leading cause. Details: New York: Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, 2010. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2010 at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 119739 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceDNA TypingEyewitness IdentificationLineupsWrongful - -Convictions |
Author: Great Britain. Law Commission Title: Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales Summary: This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. In a criminal trial, a jury or magistrates' court is required to determine disputed factual issues. Experts in a relevant field are often called as witnesses to help the fact-finding body understand and interpret evidence with which that body is unfamiliar. The current judicial approach to the admissibility of expert evidence in England and Wales is one of laissez-faire. Too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. This problem is exacerbated in two ways: •First, because expert evidence (particularly scientific evidence) will often be technical and complex, jurors will understandably lack the experience to be able to assess the reliability of such evidence. There is a danger that they may simply defer to the opinion of the specialist who has been called to provide expert evidence. •Secondly, in the absence of a clear legal test to ensure the reliability of expert evidence, advocates do not always cross-examine experts effectively to reveal potential flaws in the experts' methodology, data and reasoning. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence. This conclusion is confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2011. 219p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 829: Accessed May 4, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121612 Keywords: CourtsCriminal EvidenceExpert Witnesses (U.K.)Trials |
Author: Wells, Gary L. Title: A Test of the Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods: An Initial Report of the AJS National Eyewitness Identification Field Studies Summary: The significant role that mistaken eyewitness identifications have played in convictions of the innocent has led to a strong interest in finding ways to reduce eyewitness identification errors. Psychological scientists have been conducting laboratory studies on this problem for over 30 years and have proposed a number of possible reforms to the procedures used in conducting lineups. Most of the proposed reforms, including the critical requirement of double-blind administration (the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect), have not been considered controversial in principle and many jurisdictions across the United States have adopted them. The use of a double-blind (DB) sequential rather than a DB simultaneous lineup procedure, however, has engendered controversy, a controversy that has unnecessarily held back the adoption of non-controversial reforms in many jurisdictions. The sequential lineup shows lineup members to the witness one at a time and asks the witness to make a decision on each one before showing the next one, whereas the traditional simultaneous lineup shows the witness all lineup members at once. Controlled laboratory experiments consistently show that the DB sequential procedure results in a substantial reduction of mistaken identifications and a much smaller reduction in accurate identifications. Overall, the DB sequential lineup produces a better ratio of accurate identifications to mistaken identifications than the DB simultaneous procedure. Nevertheless, in May of 2006, a highly publicized field study in Illinois, directed by the Chicago Police Department not only called into question the sequential/simultaneous laboratory findings but raised concerns as to whether eyewitnesses in controlled experiments were a good approximation for actual eyewitnesses to serious crimes, a large share of which are victim-witnesses. Specifically, the Illinois study showed that the status quo method produced higher suspect identification rates and lower filler picks than did DB sequential lineups in two of the three cities that were tested. Lineup fillers are not suspects but instead are in the lineup to “fill it out” and create a fair procedure for the suspect. In a field experiment, the identification of fillers is the only witness response that can be definitively classified as an error. The Illinois study was quickly rejected by scientists for several reasons. Principal among the reasons were (a) that this field study confounded the simultaneous/sequential variable with non-blind versus double-blind testing, (b) there was no random assignment of cases to lineup procedure and later evidence from the Evanston site indicated that the “tougher” cases (e.g., cross-race, longer delay from crime to lineup) were more likely to be assigned to the sequential than to the simultaneous procedure, and (c) some unknown number of filler identifications were not recorded for the simultaneous lineups. Consequently, in September of 2006, the American Judicature Society convened a gathering of eyewitness scientists, lawyers, prosecutors, and police in Greensboro, NC, who developed what has become known as the “Greensboro Protocol.” The Greensboro Protocol was a set of guidelines for how to conduct a field experiment to test the simultaneous versus sequential issue and gather as much reliable data as possible on witness and event variables (e.g., type of crime, presence of a weapon, cross-race event, viewing conditions, previous acquaintance with the culprit, sobriety of the witness), and the actual administration of the lineup itself (e.g., time between crime and lineup, quality of lineup, the witness’s responses and statement of certainty). There was general agreement that the field study should feature a direct comparison of DB sequential and DB simultaneous procedures, true random assignment (the “gold standard” in scientific experiments), and the use of laptop computers. The use of laptop computers for administering the lineup and recording the witnesses responses was believed to be an especially important tool for conducting eyewitness field experiments because it could: 1) Ensure procedures were administered according to protocol (e.g., voice and printed pre-lineup instructions presented in every instance in a uniform fashion); 2) Reliably record all responses of the witness (e.g., no selectivity in deciding whether to make a record of a filler identification or lack of an identification); 3) Permit all the photos in a lineup to be preserved as part of the electronic record and reviewed subsequently by judges, juries, and scientists; 4) Randomly assign witnesses to conditions (e.g., whether a sequential or simultaneous procedure would be used); 5) Randomly determine order of the photos within each lineup; 6) Precisely record how long it took a witness to make an identification; 7) Require police officers to record systematically witness and event variables before the identification procedure was conducted; 8) Facilitate secure and contemporaneous recording of eyewitness data into the electronic information platforms of police departments; and 9) Enhance the confidence of prosecutors, judges, juries, and defense counsel that the eyewitness procedures were conducted fairly and in accordance with best practices. In short, there was an expectation that the design of this field study and the use of the laptop computers could produce a data set of unprecedented depth and detail beyond the sequential/simultaneous question. Details: Des Moines, IA: American Judicature Society, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.ajs.org/wc/pdfs/EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ajs.org/wc/pdfs/EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf Shelf Number: 122890 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationPolice LineupsWitnesses |
Author: Peterson, Joseph Title: The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence in the Criminal Justice Process Summary: Over the past twenty-five years, the forensic sciences have made dramatic scientific breakthroughs (DNA typing, physical evidence databases, and new scientific instrumentation) but studies are needed to assess the contribution of such advancements on the role and impact of scientific evidence in criminal case processing. Targeted studies have evaluated the value of DNA evidence in property crime investigations, but no studies have reviewed the full array of scientific evidence present at crime scenes. In 2006, the National Institute of Justice funded this project to address the following four goals: Objective 1 — Estimate the percentage of crime scenes from which one or more types of forensic evidence is collected; Objective 2 — Describe and catalog the kinds of forensic evidence collected at crime scenes; Objective 3 — Track the use and attrition of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system from crime scenes through laboratory analysis, and then through subsequent criminal justice processes; and Objective 4 — Identify which forms of forensic evidence contribute most frequently (relative to their availability at a crime scene) to successful case outcomes. Details: Los Angeles: California State University - Los Angeles, School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics, 2010. 151p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231977.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231977.pdf Shelf Number: 122920 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal InvestigationsForensic EvidenceForensic Science |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Guidelines for the Forensic analysis of drugs facilitating sexual assault and other criminal acts Summary: Drug-facilitated crimes are criminal acts carried out by means of administering a substance to a person with the intention of impairing behaviour, perceptions or decision-making capacity. Drug-facilitated sexual assault occurs when a person is subjected to sexual act(s) while they are incapacitated or unconscious due to the effect(s) of ethanol, a drug and/or other intoxicating substance, and as a result unable to resist or consent to such acts. While the covert use of drugs to facilitate crimes has occurred over the centuries, it has recently been highlighted by a significant increase in reports worldwide. In response to UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) resolution 53/7 on 'International cooperation in countering the covert administration of psychoactive substances related to sexual assault and other criminal acts', UNODC organized a meeting of international subject-matter experts and developed Guidelines for the Forensic analysis of drugs facilitating sexual assault and other criminal acts. These Guidelines outline the investigative and analytical challenges related to drug-facilitated crimes and emphasize the importance of evidence collection as a basis for further investigation. They address the limitations of the analytical toxicological investigation and other issues that may impact the interpretation of results. Detailed consideration is given to all analytical aspects important in the detection and identification of substances and interpretation of results in the context of drug-facilitated sexual assault cases. The importance of collaboration of all parties involved in the investigation and the importance of collecting consistent data is also emphasized. The Guidelines aim to assist in the investigation, analytical detection and prosecution in drug-facilitated crime cases and provide guidance specifically to: i)investigators and medical professionals as to requirements for successful evidence collection including sample collection and storage; and ii) analytical toxicologists to carry out analysis of these substances and interpret results in cases of drug-facilitated crimes. Details: Vienna, Austria: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at http://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/forensic_analys_of_drugs_facilitating_sexual_assault_and_other_criminal_acts.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/forensic_analys_of_drugs_facilitating_sexual_assault_and_other_criminal_acts.pdf Shelf Number: 124136 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceDrugs and CrimeForensic ScienceForensicsSexual Assault |
Author: Pezdek, Kathy Title: A Preliminary Study of How Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys Are Affected by Eyewitness Factors Summary: This preliminary study attempted to assess how appraisals of the strength of eyewitness evidence affect plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A sample of 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California participated. The attorneys had extensive experience practicing law and trying felony criminal cases in Superior Court. The attorneys were presented four scenarios in which two specific eyewitness factors – (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not – were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. After reading each scenario, they were asked five questions regarding whether they would plea bargain the case, the lowest/highest plea bargain they would offer/accept, and their estimate of the probability that the defendant was guilty and the probability that they would win the case if it went to trial. This study attempted to experimentally assess how these typical decisions regarding plea bargaining are influenced by variations in the strength of two eyewitness factors, and the whether this pattern of results differs for prosecutors versus defense attorneys. Details: Claremont Graduate University, 2012. 46p. Source: Final Technical Report: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf Shelf Number: 125057 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal ProceedingsDefense AttorneysEyewitness IdentificationPlea BargainingProsecutors |
Author: Hayeslip, David Title: Evaluation of the Forensic DNA Unit Efficiency Improvement Program Summary: This evaluation examined the implementation and outcomes of a 2008 National Institute of Justice program designed to increase the volume of DNA evidence processing through innovative methods designed to increase efficiency instead of expanding laboratory capacities. Four crime labs funded by this program participated in the evaluation. The key implementation findings were that there were significant implementation delays, largely the result of external demands and administrative constraints; and, project management varied across the sites with a laboratory-wide collaborative approach appearing to be most successful. DNA evidence processing productivity and efficiency also varied across sites. Nonetheless, outcome findings did provide support for the hypothesis that DNA processing can be improved in novel and innovative ways besides simply increasing capacity. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412575-evaluation-of-the-forensic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412575-evaluation-of-the-forensic.pdf Shelf Number: 125406 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceDNA TypingForensic SciencesForensics (U.S.) |
Author: Peterson, Joseph Title: Sexual Assault Kit Backlog Study Summary: Sexual assault is one of the most serious crimes facing society and, over the past several decades, increasing attention has been paid to the proper collection of physical evidence from victims to document and reconstruct the crime, to identify the assailant, and to aid in the prosecution of the assailant. When victims report such offenses to the police and are examined at hospitals, medical personnel employ sexual assault kits and accompanying protocols to guide the collection of evidence from the victim. Sexual assault kit (SAK) report forms also record important information from the victim about activities prior to, during and after the assault. Given the likely transfer of biological secretions in such crimes, sexual assault kits and DNA evidence have the power to verify the crime and pinpoint the identity of the assailant. The probative value of such scientific evidence, however, depends largely on the circumstances of the particular case, being pivotal in one instance and less important in another. Although law enforcement agencies and hospitals have greatly improved and expanded procedures to gather sexual assault kit evidence, scientific resources and procedures to test such evidence have not kept pace. The National Institute of Justice staff, researchers and investigative journalists have uncovered the fact that backlogged and untested sexual assault kits (SAKs) are a major problem facing forensic crime laboratories and law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The combined untested SAKs from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) reached 10,895 cases in the fall of 2008. As the result of growing public concern, Human Rights Watch undertook a study in Los Angeles to document reasons behind the accumulation of these untested kits and found a number of organizational and resource deficiencies throughout the city and county. They were not crime laboratory backlogs per se but were untested kits held in police property rooms in cold storage, where investigators and prosecutors had not requested that the SAK be tested. In 2009, however, the chief executives of Los Angles city and county law enforcement agencies announced that all backlogged kits would be tested, using outside private DNA testing laboratories. The untested sexual assault kit problem in Los Angeles, coupled with the fact that agencies had decided to test all such kits for the presence of DNA evidence, presented a unique research opportunity. The Sexual Assault Kit Backlog Project at California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 2009 to accomplish four primary objectives: 1) evaluate the results of scientific tests performed by private laboratories on backlogged sexual assault kit (SAK) evidence from the LASD and LAPD crime laboratories, 2) review the sexual assault case processing literature and the role played by evidence and other factors in solving and prosecuting such cases; 3) determine the criminal justice dispositions of a sample of backlogged and non-backlogged cases before and after kit testing; and 4) identify principal case and evidence characteristics that could be used by forensic laboratories to evaluate and prioritize sexual assault evidence submitted to crime laboratories. The accomplishment of such goals would aid all law enforcement agencies and associated crime laboratories about the value of testing backlogged sexual assault kits and to set guidelines for processing such evidence in the future. Details: Los Angeles: California State University - Los Angeles, School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics, 2012. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed june 28, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238500.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238500.pdf Shelf Number: 125377 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal ForensicsCriminal InvestigationDNA TypingRapeRapistsSexual Assault (U.S.) |
Author: Smith, Marcus Title: Recent developments in DNA evidence Summary: In this paper, the authors describe recent developments in DNA technology. Key cases involving DNA evidence in Australia and overseas that occurred between 2003 and 2014 are used to illustrate the benefits and potential issues that can arise when new DNA techniques are applied to criminal investigations. Empirical data on the value of DNA evidence and DNA databases on investigative and court outcomes are outlined, demonstrating strong support for the value of DNA evidence to investigations and prosecutions. The techniques and applications for DNA evidence described here, and future developments, clearly have important implications for policymakers, practitioners and legislators. Equally, the Australian criminal justice system will need to continue to adapt to accommodate new developments in this field. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 506: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi506.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi506.pdf Shelf Number: 138356 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal Investigations DNA Fingerprinting DNA Typing |
Author: Wells, William Title: Unsubmitted Sexual Assault Kits in Houston, TX: Case Characteristics, Forensic Testing Results, and the Investigation of CODIS Hits, Final Report Summary: In 2011, the National Institute of Justice funded the Houston Police Department to form a multidisciplinary team to study the problem of sexual assault kits (SAK) that were collected but never submitted to a crime lab for screening and testing. The Houston Action-Research Project sought to understand the factors that produced the volume of unsubmitted SAKs, the way forensic evidence is used during criminal investigations and prosecutions of sexual assaults, and what stakeholders should expect when large numbers of previously unsubmitted SAKs get tested. The project adopted a holistic approach and considered the broader issue of responses, beyond testing the kits, to sexual assaults in the community. Houston's Action-Research Project Working Group includes representatives from the following organizations: - Houston Forensic Science Center - Harris County District Attorney's Office - Harris Health System - Houston Area Women's Center - Houston Police Department Sex Crimes Investigative Units - Memorial Hermann Health System - Sam Houston State University - Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology - University of Texas at Austin - Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault The group has been working collaboratively and collecting data that has allowed for an understanding of multiple aspects of the local response system. The organizations that have been working on this project have also been implementing and evaluating reforms that are meant to improve the response to sexual assaults. Action research entails an iterative process in which research evidence informs responses and for this reason the project has generated multiple research reports. This is one of a number of reports and presentations that will be released to help other jurisdictions learn from our experiences as they seek to better understand and improve their own practices. Details: Final report submitted to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2016. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249812.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249812.pdf Shelf Number: 139402 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal InvestigationDNA SamplingPolice Policies and ProceduresRapeSexual Assault |
Author: Goodman-Delahunty, Jane Title: Jury reasoning in joint and separate trials of institutional child sexual abuse: An empirical study Summary: This report forms part of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse's research program in relation to the criminal justice system's response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. Child sex offenders are not a homogenous group and their offending behaviours vary widely. Offenders may offend against one victim or many victims, and they may engage in one incident of sexual abuse or multiple repeated incidents. The diversity and complexity of offending behaviours has a number of implications for the prosecution of child sex offenders. The scope of this report This study investigated the extent to which joint trials with cross-admissible tendency evidence infringed defendants' rights, and the extent to which joint trials posed a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. In particular, we investigated the reasoning processes of juries in a simulated joint trial of sex offences involving three complainants versus a separate trial involving a single complainant. Our jury deliberation and reasoning study investigated these issues by presenting 10 different versions of a videotaped trial involving the same core evidence to a total of 1,029 jury-eligible mock jurors. The study tested the impact of evidence strength, the number of charges and the presence of specific judicial directions on jury decision-making in joint versus separate trials. The five key aims of the project were to: 1. Document juries' interpretation of cross-admissible evidence in a joint child sexual abuse trial, to determine the extent to which juries engage in impermissible reasoning regarding such evidence Compare the above decision-making processes with those of juries in a separate trial involving the same defendant 3. Compare trial outcomes (acquittal, conviction or hung jury) in a joint versus separate trial involving the same defendant 4. Examine the relationship between jurors' misconceptions about child sexual abuse, jury deliberations and decisions, and trial outcomes 5. Determine the effect of question trail use on juries' reasoning and decisions. Details: Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2016. 376p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2016 at: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/b268080d-599a-4d44-a9c5-c3f8181bae96/Jury-reasoning-in-joint-trials-of-institutional-ch Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/b268080d-599a-4d44-a9c5-c3f8181bae96/Jury-reasoning-in-joint-trials-of-institutional-ch Shelf Number: 139863 Keywords: Child Sexual AbuseCriminal EvidenceCriminal TrialsJurorsJury Decision-MakingSex Offenders |
Author: U.S. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Title: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods Summary: "Forensic science" refers to the application of scientific or technical practices to the recognition, collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence for criminal and civil law or regulatory issues. Developments over the past two decades-including wrongful convictions in which forensic science has played a role and scientific studies of forensic science methods-have called increasing attention to the question of the scientific validity and reliability of some important forms of forensic evidence and of testimony based upon them. The study that led to the report was a response to the President's question to his PCAST in 2015, as to whether there are additional steps on the scientific side, beyond those already taken by the Administration in the aftermath of a highly critical 2009 National Research Council report on the state of the forensic sciences, that could help ensure the validity of forensic evidence used in the Nation's legal system. PCAST concluded that two important gaps warranted the group's attention: (1) the need for clarity about the scientific standards for the validity and reliability of forensic methods and (2) the need to evaluate specific forensic methods to determine whether they have been scientifically established to be valid and reliable. The study aimed to help close these gaps for a number of forensic "feature-comparison", methods-specifically, methods for comparing DNA samples, bitemarks, latent fingerprints, firearm marks, footwear, and hair. In the course of its year-long study, PCAST compiled and reviewed a set of more than 2,000 papers from various sources, educated itself on factual matters relating to the interaction between science and the law, and obtained input from forensic scientists and practitioners, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, academic researchers, criminal-justice-reform advocates, and representatives of Federal agencies. The report released today discusses the role of scientific validity within the legal system; explains the criteria by which the scientific validity of forensic methods can be judged; applies those criteria to the forensic feature-comparison methods mentioned above; and offers recommendations on Federal actions that could be taken to strengthen forensic science and promote its rigorous use in the courtroom. The recommendations-which are directed at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, the Attorney General, and the judiciary-include the following: NIST should perform evaluations, on an ongoing basis, of the scientific validity of current and newly developed forensic feature-matching technologies and should issue an annual public report on the results. NIST should take a leadership role in transforming three important feature-comparison methods - DNA analysis of complex mixtures, latent-fingerprint analysis, and firearms analysis - from currently subjective methods, with their heavy reliance on human judgement, into objective methods, in which standardized, quantifiable processes require little or no judgment. OSTP should coordinate the creation of a national forensic science research and development strategy. The FBI Laboratory should undertake a vigorous research program to improve forensic science, building on its recent important work on latent-fingerprint analysis. The Attorney General should direct attorneys appearing on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure expert testimony in court about forensic feature-comparison methods meets the standards of scientific validity. The Attorney General should revise and reissue for public comment the DOJ proposed "Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports" and supporting documents to bring them into alignment with standards for scientific validity. When deciding the admissibility of expert testimony, Federal judges should take into account the appropriate scientific criteria for assessing scientific validity. PCAST believes the findings and recommendations will be of use both to the judiciary and to those working to strengthen forensic science. Details: Washington, DC: The Council, 2016. 174p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 140456 Keywords: Criminal CourtCriminal EvidenceForensic EvidenceForensic ScienceForensic Science Evidence |
Author: Schroeder, David A. Title: The Impact of Forensic Evidence on Arrest and Prosecution Summary: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant solicitation, Social Science Research on Forensic Science (NIJ-2011-2822), was heavily reliant on the NIJ study, The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence in the Criminal Justice Process (Peterson, Sommers, Baskin, and Johnson, 2010). The objectives of Peterson et al., (2010) were to 1) "Estimate the percentage of crime scenes from which one or more types of forensic evidence is collected;" 2) "Describe and catalog the kinds of forensic evidence collected at crime scenes;" 3) "Track the use and attrition of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system from crime scenes through laboratory analysis, and then through subsequent criminal justice processes;" 4) "Identify which forms of forensic evidence contribute most frequently (relative to their availability at a crime scene) to successful case outcomes" (Peterson et al. 2010, Pg. 11-12). Peterson, et al. (2010) analyzed crime lab, investigative, and prosecutorial case file information of crimes that fit into one of five crime categories: assault; burglary; homicide; rape; and robbery. Peterson et al. (2010) concluded their analysis by making ten recommendations regarding future research on the utility of forensic evidence. The current study, The Impact of Forensic Evidence on Arrest and Prosecution, addressed several of these recommendations via a methodology that informs the four research objectives listed above. The first Peterson et al. (2010) recommendation is generally related to simple replication - refining and performing a similar analysis in another jurisdiction. This study addressed this recommendation by mimicking the methodology used by Peterson et al. (2010). Variables, crime categories, sample size, and analytical models were all borrowed from Peterson et al. (2010). Another recommendation of the Peterson et al. (2010) makes clear the need for a more detailed assessment of how the mere existence of available forensic evidence affects the arrest and prosecution of offenders. A major finding of Peterson et al. (2010) stated most evidence goes unexamined, but its presence in cases was associated with arrest and movement of cases through the justice process. As forensic evidence moves through the criminal justice system, less and less evidence makes it to the next stage. This movement resembles a funnel or an inverted pyramid (Peterson, 1974). Added studies are needed to review how unexamined forensic and tangible evidence teams with other conventional investigative procedures to lead to arrests (page 9). The same phenomenon has also been discovered in another recent analysis of the use of one type of forensic evidence, namely DNA. Schroeder (2007) discovered that among his sample of homicide cases from the City of New York (1996 - 2003) the group of cases that had the highest clearance rate was the group in which evidence for DNA analysis was collected from the scene but never analyzed. There are three general areas of explanation for why unexamined evidence is associated with higher clearance rates. First, the collection of forensic evidence from crime scenes has become so commonplace that its collection is not contingent upon the needs of the investigation, but simply a matter of protocol. Therefore, when cases present non-forensic evidence (e.g. suspect interrogations, witness statements and identifications) sufficient to advance the case through the system the byproduct is a great deal of collected, but unanalyzed forensic evidence. Second, the analysis of forensic evidence is so time-consuming as to influence its utility. Details: New Haven, CT: University of New Haven, Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences, 2017. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250721.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250721.pdf Shelf Number: 147524 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceDNA TypingEvidenceForensic Evidence |
Author: Justice Project Title: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: A Policy Review Summary: Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a powerful innovation and fact-finding tool for the criminal justice system. A central objective of the criminal justice system is to accurately ascertain the facts surrounding criminal offenses in order to correctly identify perpetrators so that they may be punished. The virtue of electronic recording of custodial interrogations, and its strength as a public policy, lies not only in its ability to help guard against false confessions, but also in its ability to develop the strongest evidence possible to help convict the guilty This policy review has been designed to facilitate communication among local law enforcement agencies, policymakers, practitioners, and others by extrapolating on the documented benefits of electronic recording and dispelling some of the common misconceptions about the costs of implementation. By presenting many of the successful methods employed in local jurisdictions, we hope to create a dialogue around recommendations that will enhance the quality of evidence relied upon in criminal trials, as well as public confidence in our system of justice. As education on the inherent benefits of electronic recording continues, the momentum for procedural reforms also continues to build. In 2004-2005, state legislators in 25 states introduced legislation seeking to mandate the recording of custodial interrogations. In addition, editorial boards and criminal justice commissions across the country continue to hail electronic recording of interrogations as good policy for law enforcement. Ultimately, no changes can completely eliminate the risk of error in criminal cases, but the changes recommended here are pragmatic strategies with a track record of success. Increasingly, comparisons between the relatively low costs of implementing these reforms and the substantial benefits are leading more jurisdictions to modernize interrogation procedures. Details: Washington, DC: The Justice Project, 2007. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Justice%20Project(07).pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Justice%20Project(07).pdf Shelf Number: 118079 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceElectronic Recording Interrogation Interviews |
Author: Big Brother Watch Title: Face Off: The lawless growth of facial recognition in UK policing Summary: Facial recognition has long been feared as a feature of a future authoritarian society, with its potential to turn CCTV cameras into identity checkpoints, creating a world where citizens are intensively watched and tracked. However, facial recognition is now a reality in the UK - despite the lack of any legal basis or parliamentary scrutiny, and despite the significant concerns raised by rights and race equality groups. This new technology poses an unprecedented threat to citizens' privacy and civil liberties, and could fundamentally undermine the rights we enjoy in public spaces. Police forces in the UK have rolled out automatic facial recognition at a pace unlike any other democratic nation in the world. Leicestershire Police, South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police have deployed this technology at shopping centres, festivals, sports events, concerts, community events - and even a peaceful demonstration. One police force even used the surveillance tool to keep innocent people with mental health issues away from a public event. In this report, we explain how facial recognition technology works, how it is being used by police in the UK, and how it risks reshaping our rights. We are seeking to raise awareness of this growing issue with parliamentarians and inform the wider public about what is happening behind the cameras. In this report, we: - Reveal new statistics following a series of freedom of information requests, exposing the shocking inaccuracy and likely unlawful practices within a number of police forces using automated facial recognition; - Analyse the legal and human rights implications of the police's use of facial recognition in the UK; - Review the evidence that facial recognition algorithms often disproportionately misidentify minority ethnic groups and women; - Present guest contributions from allies worldwide warning about the impact of facial recognition on rights, including contributions from representatives of American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Georgetown Privacy Centre, and the Race Equality Foundation; We conclude by launching our campaign against the lawless growth of facial recognition in the UK, supported by rights groups, race equality groups, technologists, lawyers and parliamentarians. Details: London: Big Brother Watch, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Face-Off-final-digital-1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Face-Off-final-digital-1.pdf Shelf Number: 150405 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal IdentificationFacial RecognitionHuman Rights AbusesPolice TechnologyPrivacy |
Author: New York University School of Law, Policing Project Title: Report to the Los Angeles Police Commission Summarizing Public Feedback on LAPD Video Release Policies Summary: The Los Angeles Police Commission ("Commission" or "Police Commission") serves as the "board of directors" for the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD" or "Department"), with the authority to establish polices for the LAPD and oversee its operations. The Commission is reviewing the LAPD's policy on releasing video footage of "critical incidents," including any incident in which an officer fires his or her gun or a person dies in police custody. As part of that process, the Commission asked the Policing Project at New York University School of Law ("Policing Project") to help gather feedback on whether, when, and how, video footage of critical incidents should be made publicly available. This report summarizes the feedback received. Members of the general public and LAPD personnel were invited to provide feedback in several ways: by completing a brief questionnaire, submitting more detailed written comments, attending community forums, and participating in officer focus groups. The questionnaire, and other materials, including a video release policy FAQ, were available in English and Spanish at www.LAPDVideo.org. The questionnaire and comment period ran for 46 days, from March 23 through May 7. The questionnaire asked demographic questions including the respondents' race, age, and income, as well as whether the respondent was a member of law enforcement. There were not sharp divergences among respondents along demographic lines. The one exception-evident both in the questionnaire responses and in other sources of input - was that significant disagreement emerged in general between law enforcement and members of the general public. We note these differences where pertinent. The Policing Project ultimately received 3,199 questionnaire responses from individuals who lived, worked, or attended school in Los Angeles, including 532 responses from individuals self-identifying as law enforcement officers. The Policing Project also received 20 sets of written comments from individuals and organizations, representing the views of 27 organizations in total. Additional feedback was provided at 5 community forums and 8 officer focus groups. The ACLU of Southern California submitted a petition on the subject with the signatures of 1,773 individuals. Some key themes emerged from the process, which we elaborate upon briefly below and in great detail in the report that follows. In general, both officers and members of the public agreed that video should be released to the public, for reasons of transparency, accountability, and trust. However, the public favored releasing video within a relatively shorter release time (30-60 days), and generally preferred that release be automatic as opposed to decided on a case-by-case basis. It is not that members of the public failed to appreciate that various factors might mitigate for or against a decision to release video in a particular case. Rather, the public evinced a lack of confidence or trust in existing public institutions to make the correct decision on a case-by-case approach. (In addition, some members of the public expressed the view that many of the factors that were identified as counseling against release could be addressed by speeding up the pace of investigations or taking other ameliorative measures.) LAPD officers and officials, for their part, tended to have somewhat more faith in public institutions, and to believe that release should not occur until the LA Police Commission reaches a decision as to the propriety of the officer's conduct (often up to a year at present), or the District Attorney decides whether any criminal charges will be filed (in some instances as long as two years after the incident). Still, LAPD officers joined the public in expressing concern about "politics" affecting the decision whether to release video coverage. Details: New York: Author, 2017. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2019 at: http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/public%20feedback%20project%20lapd%20video%20release.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/public%20feedback%20project%20lapd%20video%20release.pdf Shelf Number: 155377 Keywords: Criminal EvidencePolice AccountabilityPolice EvidencePolice LegitimacyPolice Policies and ProceduresPolice SurveillancePolice VideosPolice-Community Relations |