Digital Evidence In The Courtroom

Evidence integrity and continuity Introduction In criminal investigations, it is vital to keep the evidence protected and ensure that it does not become contaminated, is tampered or altered in any way. There are two ways of maintaining evidence is in its truest form; evidence continuity and evidence integrity. Evidence is a vital component in criminal investigations and is the determining factor in successfully prosecuting the defendant as it identifies the offender or those who are involved. Evidence institutes facts of the crime and also proves that a crime has been committed (Tom McEwen 2011).

Moreover, the feature correlates what governs the use of evidence, and how civil and criminal trials work. There are two types of evidence the first being direct, which provides “information that is beyond reasonable doubt.” The second, circumstantial, which may suggest proof, but does not absolutely prove something. The acceptable criminal evidence “provides

Forensic science and law are often seen as two opposing disciplines; forensic science is often presumed to be factual and law can be interpreted in multiple ways. Science and law reach conclusions in different ways which is an issue. Due to these differences, miscommunication is often the cause for miscarriages of justice. In order to address this problem, people working in the criminal justice system should have more knowledge of forensic science. There are many factors that contribute to the lack of understanding between forensic science and the people involved in the court process. Firstly, the adversarial model will be discussed in relation to how these procedures prevent effective communication between forensic evidence and lawyers. Secondly, the role that expert witnesses play in the presentation of scientific evidence and how jurors play a role in interpreting their evidence, will be considered. Thirdly it will be argued that lawyers and judges lack adequate knowledge of forensic science that is needed to conduct accurate trials. Lastly, possible solutions to improve the communication between forensic science and the actors involved in the criminal justice system. Juries, lawyers and judges should be more educated in understanding forensic science.

* This phenomenon is best referred to as a “cumulative collaboration of evidence” (Pepper 49).

For example, a Dentist could not write a research article on the best delivery method for babies because that is not their specialty. Therefore, good indicators of credibility would consist of evidence that the article has been peer-reviewed by other scholars in a similar field and the writer’s credentials.2 The “A” stands for accuracy, which focuses on ensuring that the information that is presented is not only up to date but also exact, detailed and comprehensive.2 Science is an ever changing field and research studies that might have been conducted 20 years ago may not be true today because of the technical advances. Therefore, it is essential that when dealing with accuracy certain indicators need to be considered such as the timeliness of the information, is the information presented in an un-bias approach and is the information

In the grand scheme of trial, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence can take several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. Regardless of what type evidence is presented must be relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).

They also affect how a case is explained through witness testimonies and evidence in the trial process. The rules of evidence show the amount of evidence that is required to provide proof of a criminal case. The collection of evidence and information at the scene of the crime needs to focus on forming the elements to the crime being investigated and proving the crime at a criminal trial. The law of evidence guides the crime scene investigative process. The rules of evidence affect how crime scenes are investigated and how a criminal case is presented through the criminal trial process (Buckles,

Forensic evidence is found by scientific means such as finger prints and DNA tests. It also helps eliminate suspects, determines facts of the crimes, and can breakdown the incidents leading up to and following the crime. Since it’s such a reliable source of evidence it’s hardly ever inaccurate, the only errors that occur are human mistakes. “Yet hard evidence is only as reliable as the people who collect, analyze, and interpret it.”

Physical and trace evidence collected at a crime scene can be an invaluable tool for investigating officers, as well as prosecuting attorneys. However, it is imperative that evidence be handled appropriately, and following the appropriate chain of custody from collection to trial. Physical evidence can play both a direct or circumstantial role in the

The collection of evidence, whether it be direct, circumstantial, physical, or testimonial, is very important to a case. Why? Because that evidence is what the prosecution hopes will end with a conviction. However, sometimes things happen and evidence gets contaminated. Now, the biggest thing to determine is whether the contamination happened on accident or if someone tampered with it on purpose.

this term and how to weigh information based on its level of credibility. You will now

What are rules of evidence and why are they necessary in our legal system? Rules of evidence range from physical to tangible items, audio, and video to record logs and receipts that can show prove or disprove person being accused of a crime is given due process. Even your DNA can make you a suspect or even the culprit. Evidence is like a double edged sword, it can hurt you if it is available and shows a person is guilty or it can help exonerate you if lacking enough sufficient credible evidence cannot prove you are guilty of committing the crime. A few key areas of exploration of rules of evidence are the following: rules or requirements for evidence that allow them to be admissible and used in the court system; proof,

“At its most basic, the process of interpreting trial results includes two considerations: causality and certainty.”

Evidence is an integral detail in any legal case, evidence is what determines the length of sentence and evidence is what sways any jury. But can the presumable presented documentation be completely trusted in all cases? Misrepresented facts are common in the courtroom as well as in the world. No revision within the criminal justice system, and the lack of strict procedures and high standards are producing an arena for faulty facts. It is essential that the judicial system develop a more trustworthy protocol for evidence and that the community keeps informed.

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat