Essay on Forensic Analysis in Criminal Investigation: Assessing Evidence for Court

Introduction

The forensic analysts in a criminal investigation usually carry out their evidence gathering and analysis in a careful manner. The collected materials play a crucial role in the outcome of a case in a court of law. The process involves the determination of the standards of evidence and whether it can get assist in proving the case for a favorable judgment. Usually, the court process requires the prosecution team to use the lab tests to confirm the validity of the gathered evidence. However, the investigative officer often carries out a preliminary crime-scene observation to get a clear picture of how the crime occurred. The work of the prosecution team is to link that evidence to the perpetrator of the crime.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Identify What Types of Evidence Might Get Subjected To Preliminary or Field Testing

It is common to find a perpetrator leaving behind traces of evidence like hair, fingerprints, and other miniature DNA elements from their body in a crime scene. Thus, the investigative officer often assumes the fact that a criminal must always leave behind small mount evidence (Inoue, 2019). Consequently, a careful analysis of the little evidence, and it is distributed on the crime scene shades a lot of light on exactly how the crime occurred. The following are the type of evidence which go through a preliminary analysis: blood droplets, fingerprints, shoe prints, bullet casings, hair, and shattered glass particles. A field analysis of these evidence materials can tell an investigator the weapons used and the point impact. However, some evidence, like the DNA sample, requires lab testing (Inoue, 2019).

Describe At Least Two Types of Testing That Might get Done On Scene

Crime Scene investigator usually analyzes the left behind physical and miniature materials to determine if the action is intentional or accidental. The investigator ought to give precise attention to the placement of objects to establish the chronology of events. All these processes get categorized into two; that is class and accidental characteristics.

Examination of class and individual characteristics is the first step of an investigation. The analysis of the materials on the scene like glass fragments left behind pieces of clothes gives evidence of scenarios like forceful entry (Lam et al., 2018). The investigators also analyze things like tire prints to determine the kind of car used. Also, the distribution and nature of physical evidence give a preliminary idea of whether there is any form of struggle. The individual characteristics like bullet casings tell the type of guns used in the crime. After this, the next step of the investigation gets determined.

On the other hand, the investigation officer usually examines accidental characteristics like the prints, marks, and materials of clothing or shoe left behind. These pieces of evidence help in linking the elements with specific suspects who could have been on the scene of the crime. The sensitivity of the evidence left behind usually prompts the forensic experts to close a particular is for investigation (Lam et al., 2018). Then they determine if some of the evidence ought to get analyzed in the field, or it needs an intensive lab test. The ability of the investigator to handle evidence without tampering with it is critical for the success of the case.

Differentiate Between Why Some Evidence Can and Should Be Subjected To Preliminary Testing On Scene, While Other Types Should Not

Some evidence gathered, for instance, the DNA materials, blood samples, and hair require a lot of time and technology to analyze hence the need for lab testing. On the other hand, some evidence, like the sign of struggle in a murder case, requires preliminary examination. Such evidence gets analyzed to rule out any exaggeration, after which the pictures of the scene get recorded.

Explain How the On-Scene Test Compares To Laboratory Testing

The on-scene test serves the purpose of providing a general assumption of how the crime took place. Consequently, the investigator might end up discovering hidden pieces of evidence. Furthermore, such kind of evidence helps in directing the focus of an investigation. Surprisingly, such evidence is not admissible in a court of law. The court does not operate on assumptions and prejudices of people (Baron & Sullivan, 2018). However, the laboratory tests usually end up proving the hypothesis is right and provide a final evaluation of an investigation.

Compare and Contrast the Results Yielded By Preliminary Field versus Laboratory Testing

The results from on-scene results require cheaper resources as compared to a lab test, which usually requires expensive and state of the art technology (Inoue, 2019). Moreover, the on-scene investigation takes a shorter time to say hours to a few days, whereas the lab test takes a long time due to several experts getting involved. In terms of accuracy, the lab tests are often accurate as compared to on-site observations (Inoue, 2019). However, the two results work hand in hand to complement each other. There are also some similarities between the two results derived. Such similarities include the sign of struggle and shock that can both become gathered from on-scene investigation and postmortem tests.

Compare and Contrast the Admissibility of On-Scene versus Laboratory Testing At Trial

The court only admits lab tests during a litigation process (Baron & Sullivan, 2018). However, the on-scene results can serve as a tool for explaining the hypothesis, which then gets precisely concluded with the backing of lab results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the lead investigators in a criminal case ought to carry out extensive and intensive analysis of the evidence available at the scene of the crime to avoid any tampering or leaving behind crucial evidence. There then occurs further testing of the evidence in a lab test to support the proof of the on-scene investigation conclusively. It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecution team to carefully collect and analyze all the physical evidence of a crime since court litigation does not admit on-scene investigation results.

References

Baron, E., & Sullivan, J. (2018). Judging mechanistic neuroscience: A preliminary conceptual-analytic framework for evaluating scientific evidence in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(3), 334-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1428056

Inoue, H. (2019). Forensic Science and Scientific Investigations. Yakugaku Zasshi: Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan, 139(5), 685-691. DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.18-00166-1

Lam, R., Lennard, C., Kingsland, G., Johnstone, P., Symons, A., Wythes, L., & Spikmans, V. (2018). Person-portable equipment in environmental forensic investigations: application to fire scenes. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(6), 672-681. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1424242