1152017 University of Phoenix Forensic Science From the Cr.docx

11/5/2017 University of Phoenix: Forensic Science: From the
Crime Scene to the Crime Lab
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323284162/cfi/6/4
2!/4/[email protected]:0 1/66
PRINTED BY: [email protected] Printing is for personal,
private use only. No part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
1 Introduction
Joe Burbank/MCT/Newscom
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
• Define forensic science and list the major disciplines forensic
science encompasses.
• Recognize the major contributors to the development of
forensic science.
• Account for the rapid growth of forensic laboratories in the
past forty years.
• Describe the services of a typical comprehensive crime
laboratory in the criminal
justice system.

• Compare and contrast the Frye and Daubert decisions relating
to the admissibility of
scientific evidence in the courtroom.
• Explain the role and responsibilities of the expert witness.
• List the specialized forensic services, aside from the crime
laboratory, that are
generally available to law enforcement personnel.
1
CASEY ANTHONY: THE CSI EFFECT?
Few criminal proceedings have captured the attention of the
American public or have
invoked stronger emotions than the Casey Anthony murder trial.
How could a defendant
who failed to report her two-year-old child missing for 31 days
walk away scot-free from a
murder conviction? This case had all the makings of a strong
circumstantial case for the

state.
The state’s theory was that Casey used chloroform to render her
daughter unconscious,
placed duct tape over Caylee’s mouth and nose, and kept the
body in the trunk for several
days before disposing of it. Caylee’s decomposed remains were
discovered more than five
months after she was reported missing.
Have TV forensic dramas created an environment in the
courtroom that necessitates the
existence of physical evidence to directly link a defendant to a
crime scene? The closest the
state came to a direct link was a hair found in the trunk of
Casey’s car. However, the DNA
test on the hair could only link the hair to Caylee’s maternal
relatives: Casey, Casey’s mother
(Caylee’s maternal grandmother), and Casey’s brother (Caylee’s
uncle). And Caylee herself.
No unique characteristics were found to link the duct tape on
the body with that found in
the Anthony home.
No DNA, no fingerprints, no conviction.

Definition and Scope of Forensic Science
Forensic science, in its broadest definition, is the application of
science to law. As our society
has grown more complex, it has become more dependent on
rules of law to regulate the
activities of its members. Forensic science applies the
knowledge and technology of science
to the definition and enforcement of such laws.
Each year, as government finds it increasingly necessary to
regulate the activities that most
intimately influence our daily lives, science merges more
closely with civil and criminal
law. Consider, for example, the laws and agencies that regulate
the quality of our food, the
nature and potency of drugs, the extent of automobile

emissions, the kind of fuel oil we
burn, the purity of our drinking water, and the pesticides we use
on our crops and plants. It
would be difficult to conceive of a food or drug regulation or
environmental protection act
that could be effectively monitored and enforced without the
assistance of scientific
technology and the skill of the scientific community.
Laws are continually being broadened and revised to counter the
alarming increase in
crime rates. In response to public concern, law enforcement
agencies have expanded their
patrol and investigative functions, hoping to stem the rising tide
of crime. At the same time,
they are looking more to the scientific community for advice
and technical support for their
efforts. Can the technology that put astronauts on the moon,
split the atom, and eradicated
most dreaded diseases be enlisted in this critical battle?
Unfortunately, science cannot offer final and authoritative
solutions to problems that stem
from a maze of social and psychological factors. However, as
the content of this book attests,

science occupies an important and unique role in the criminal
justice system—a role that
relates to the scientist’s ability to supply accurate and objective
information about the
events that have occurred at a crime scene. A good deal of work
remains to be done if the
full potential of science as applied to criminal investigations is
to be realized.
Because of the vast array of civil and criminal laws that
regulate society, forensic science, in
its broadest sense, has become so comprehensive a subject that
a meaningful introductory
textbook treating its role and techniques would difficult to
create and probably
overwhelming to read. For this reason, we have narrowed the
scope of the subject
according to the most common definition: Forensic science is
the application of science to
the criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies
in a criminal justice system.
1
2

Forensic science is an umbrella term encompassing a myriad of
professions that use their
skills to aid law enforcement officials in conducting their
investigations.
The diversity of professions practicing forensic science is
illustrated by the eleven sections
of the American Academy of Forensic Science, the largest
forensic science organization in
the world:
1. Criminalistics
2. Digital and Multimedia Sciences
3. Engineering Science
4. General
5. Jurisprudence
6. Odontology
7. Pathology/Biology
8. Physical Anthropology

9. Psychiatry/Behavioral Science
10. Questioned Documents
11. Toxicology
Even this list of professions is not exclusive. It does not
encompass skills such as fingerprint
examination, firearm and tool mark examination, computer and
digital data analysis, and
photography.
Obviously, to author a book covering all of the major activities
of forensic science as they
apply to the enforcement of criminal and civil laws by police
agencies would be a major
undertaking. Thus, this book will further restrict itself to
discussions of the subjects of

chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and computer technology,
which are useful for
determining the evidential value of crime-scene and related
evidence. Forensic pathology,
psychology, anthropology, and odontology also encompass
important and relevant areas of
knowledge and practice in law enforcement, each being an
integral part of the total forensic
science service that is provided to any up-to-date criminal
justice system. However, these
subjects go beyond the intended scope of this book, and except
for brief discussions, along
with pointing the reader to relevent websites, the reader is
referred elsewhere for
discussions of their applications and techniques. Instead, this
book focuses on the services
of what has popularly become known as the crime laboratory,
where the principles and
techniques of the physical and natural sciences are practiced
and applied to the analysis of
crime-scene evidence.
For many, the term criminalistics seems more descriptive than
forensic science for
describing the services of a crime laboratory. Regardless of his

or her title—criminalist or
forensic scientist—the trend of events has made the scientist in
the crime laboratory an
active participant in the criminal justice system.
2
3
1
https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781323284162/epub/OPS/
loc_006.xhtml#eid2785
FIGURE 1-1 A scene from CSI, a forensic science television
show.
SUN/Newscom
Prime-time television shows like CSI: Crime Scene
Investigation have greatly increased the
public’s awareness of the use of science in criminal and civil
investigations (see Figure 1-1).
However, by simplifying scientific procedures to fit the allotted
airtime, these shows have

created within both the public and the legal community
unrealistic expectations of forensic
science. In these shows, members of the CSI team collect
evidence at the crime scene,
process all evidence, question witnesses, interrogate suspects,
carry out search warrants,
and testify in court. In the real world, these tasks are almost
always
delegated to different people in different parts of the criminal
justice system. Procedures
that in reality could take days, weeks, months, or years appear
on these shows to take mere
minutes. This false image is significantly responsible for the
public’s high interest in and

expectations for DNA evidence.
The dramatization of forensic science on television has led the
public to believe that every
crime scene will yield forensic evidence, and it produces
unrealistic expectations that a
prosecutor’s case should always be bolstered and supported by
forensic evidence. This
phenomenon is known as the “CSI effect.” Some jurists have
come to believe that this
phenomenon ultimately detracts from the search for truth and
justice in the courtroom.
History and Development of Forensic Science
Forensic science owes its origins, first, to the individuals who
developed the principles and
techniques needed to identify or compare physical evidence and,
second, to those who
recognized the need to merge these principles into a coherent
discipline that could be
practically applied to a criminal justice system.
The roots of forensic science reach back many centuries, and
history records a number of
instances in which individuals closely observed evidence and
applied basic scientific

principles to solve crimes. Not until relatively recently,
however, did forensic science take
on the more careful and systematic approach that characterizes
the modern discipline.
EARLY DEVELOPMENTS
One of the earliest records of applying forensics to solve
criminal cases comes from third-
century China. A manuscript titled Yi Yu Ji (“A Collection of
Criminal Cases”) reports how a
coroner solved a case in which a woman was suspected of
murdering her husband and
burning the body, claiming that he died in an accidental fire.
Noticing that the husband’s
corpse had no ashes in its mouth, the coroner performed an
experiment to test the woman’s
story. He burned two pigs—one alive and one dead—and then
checked for ashes inside the
mouth of each. He found ashes in the mouth of the pig that was
alive before it was burned,
but none in the mouth of the pig that was dead beforehand. The
coroner thus concluded
that the husband, too, was dead before his body was burned.
Confronted with this evidence,

the woman admitted her guilt. The Chinese were also among the
first to recognize the
potential of fingerprints as a means of identification.
3
4
Although cases such as that of the Chinese coroner are
noteworthy, this kind of scientific
approach to criminal investigation was for many years the
exception rather than the rule.
Limited knowledge of anatomy and pathology hampered the
development of forensic
science until the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
For example, the first
recorded notes about fingerprint characteristics were prepared
in 1686 by Marcello
Malpighi, a professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna
in Italy. Malpighi, however,
did not acknowledge the value of fingerprints as a method of

identification. The first
scientific paper about the nature of fingerprints did not appear
until more than a century
later, but it also did not recognize their potential as a form of
identification.
INITIAL SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES
As physicians gained a greater understanding of the workings of
the body, the first scientific
treatises on forensic science began to appear, such as the 1798
work “A Treatise on Forensic
Medicine and Public Health” by the French physician
François-Emanuel Fodéré. Breakthroughs in chemistry at this
time also helped forensic
science take significant strides forward. In 1775, the Swedish
chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele

devised the first successful test for detecting the poison arsenic
in corpses. By 1806, the
German chemist Valentin Ross had discovered a more precise
method for detecting small
amounts of arsenic in the walls of a victim’s stomach. The most
significant early figure in
this area was Mathieu Orfila, a Spaniard who is considered the
father of forensic toxicology.
In 1814, Orfila published the first scientific treatise on the
detection of poisons and their
effects on animals. This treatise established forensic toxicology
as a legitimate scientific
endeavor (see Figure 1-2).
The mid-1800s saw a spate of advances in several scientific
disciplines that furthered the
field of forensic science. In 1828, William Nichol invented the
polarizing microscope. Eleven
years later, Henri-Louis Bayard formulated the first procedures
for microscopic detection of
sperm. Other developments during this time included the first
microcrystalline test for
hemoglobin (1853) and the first presumptive test for blood
(1863). Such tests soon found

practical applications in criminal trials. Toxicological evidence
at trial was first used in
1839, when a Scottish chemist named James Marsh testified that
he had detected arsenic in
a victim’s body. During the 1850s and 1860s, the new science
of photography was also used
in forensics to record images of prisoners and crime scenes.
4
5
FIGURE 1-2 Mathieu Orfila.
The Granga Collection, New York
LATE-NINETEENTH-CENTURY PROGRESS
By the late nineteenth century, public officials were beginning
to apply knowledge from
virtually all scientific disciplines to the study of crime.
Anthropology and morphology (the

study of the structure of living organisms) were applied to the
first system of personal
identification, devised by the French scientist Alphonse
Bertillon in 1879. Bertillon’s system,
which he dubbed anthropometry, was a procedure that involved
taking a series of bodily
measurements as a means of distinguishing one individual from
another. For nearly two
decades, this system was considered the most accurate method
of personal identification.
Bertillon’s early efforts earned him the distinction of being
known as the father of criminal
identification (see Figure 1-3).
Bertillon’s anthropometry, however, would soon be supplanted
by a more reliable method
of identification: fingerprinting. Two years before the
publication of Bertillon’s system, the
US microscopist Thomas Taylor had suggested that fingerprints

could be used as a means of
identification, but his ideas were not immediately followed up.
Three years later, the
Scottish physician Henry Faulds made a similar assertion in a
paper published in the
journal Nature. However, it was the Englishman Francis Henry
Galton who undertook the
first definitive study of fingerprints and developed a
methodology of classifying them for
filing. In 1892, Galton published a book titled Finger Prints,
which contained the first
statistical proof supporting the uniqueness of fingerprints and
the effectiveness of his
method. His book went on to describe the basic principles that
would form our present
system of identification by fingerprints.
The first treatise describing the application of scientific
disciplines to the field of criminal
investigation was written by Hans Gross in 1893. Gross, a
public prosecutor and judge in
Graz, Austria, spent many years studying and developing
principles of criminal
investigation. In his classic book Handbuch für
Untersuchungsrichter als System der

Kriminalistik (later published in English under the title
Criminal Investigation), he detailed
the assistance that investigators could expect from the fields of
microscopy, chemistry,
physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anthropometry, and
fingerprinting. He later
introduced the forensic journal Archiv für Kriminal
Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, which
still reports improved methods of scientific crime detection.
FIGURE 1-3 Bertillon’s system of bodily measurements used
for the
identification of an individual.
Courtesy Sirchie Fingerprint Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville,
NC, www.sirchie.com

5
6
http://www.sirchie.com/
Ironically, the best-known figure in nineteenth-century
forensics is not a real person but a
fictional character: the legendary detective Sherlock Holmes
(see Figure 1-4). Many people
today believe that Holmes’s creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
had a considerable influence
on popularizing scientific crime-detection methods. In
adventures with his partner and
biographer, Dr. John Watson, Holmes was the first to apply the
newly developing principles
of serology (the study of blood and bodily fluids),
fingerprinting, firearms identification, and

questioned-document examination long before their value was
recognized and accepted by
real-life criminal investigators. Holmes’s feats excited the
imagination of an emerging
generation of forensic scientists and criminal investigators.
Even in the first Sherlock
Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887, we find
examples of Doyle’s uncanny
ability to describe scientific methods of detection years before
they were actually
discovered and implemented. For instance, here Holmes
explains the potential usefulness of
forensic serology to criminal investigation:
“I’ve found it. I’ve found it,” he shouted to my companion,
running toward us with a test
tube in his hand. “I have found a reagent which is precipitated
by hemoglobin and by
nothing else …. Why, man, it is the most practical medico-legal
discovery for years.
Don’t you see that it gives us an infallible test for blood stains?
… The old guaiacum test
was very clumsy and uncertain. So is the microscopic
examination for blood corpuscles.

The latter is valueless if the stains are a few hours old. Now,
this appears to act as well
whether the blood is old or new. Had this test been invented,
there are hundreds of men
now walking the earth who would long ago have paid the
penalty of their crimes ….
Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A
man is suspected of a
crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or
clothes are examined
and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they blood
stains, or rust stains, or fruit
stains, or what are they? That is a question which has puzzled
many an expert, and
why? Because there was no reliable test. Now we have the
Sherlock Holmes test, and
there will no longer be any difficulty.”
6
7

FIGURE 1-4 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective
Sherlock Holmes
applied many of the principles of modern forensic science long
before they
were adopted widely by real-life police.
© Paul C. Chauncey/CORBIS. All rights reserved.
TWENTIETH-CENTURY BREAKTHROUGHS
The pace of technological change quickened considerably in the
twentieth century, and with
it the rate of advancements in forensic science. In 1901, Dr.
Karl Landsteiner discovered
that blood can be grouped into different categories, now
recognized as the blood types A, B,
AB, and O. The possibility that blood grouping could be useful
in identifying an individual
intrigued Dr. Leone Lattes,

a professor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the
University of Turin in Italy. In 1915,
Lattes devised a relatively simple procedure for determining the
blood group of the dried
blood in a bloodstain, a technique that he immediately applied
to criminal investigations.
At around the same time, Albert S. Osborn was conducting
pioneering work in document
examination. In 1910, Osborn wrote the first significant text in
this field, Questioned
Documents. This book is still a primary reference for document
examiners. Osborn’s
development of fundamental principles of document
examination was responsible for the
acceptance of documents as scientific evidence by the courts.

One of the most important contributors to the field in the early
twentieth century was the
Frenchman Edmond Locard. Although Hans Gross was a
pioneering advocate for the use of
the scientific method in criminal investigations, Locard first
demonstrated how the
principles enunciated by Gross could be incorporated within a
workable crime laboratory.
Locard’s formal education was in both medicine and law. In
1910, he persuaded the Lyons
police department to give him two attic rooms and two
assistants to start a police
laboratory. During Locard’s first years of work, the instruments
available to him were a
microscope and a rudimentary spectrometer. However, his
enthusiasm quickly overcame
the technical and budgetary deficiencies he encountered, and
from these modest
beginnings, Locard conducted research and made discoveries
that became known
throughout the world by forensic scientists and criminal
investigators. Eventually he
became the founder and director of the Institute of
Criminalistics at the University of Lyons,

which quickly developed into a leading international center for
study and research in
forensic science (see Figure 1-5).
Locard asserted that when two objects come into contact with
each other a cross-transfer of
materials occurs (Locard’s exchange principle). He strongly
believed that every criminal can
be connected to a crime by dust particles carried from the crime
scene. This concept was
reinforced by a series of successful and well-publicized
investigations. In one case,
presented with counterfeit coins and the names of three
suspects, Locard urged the police to
bring the suspects’ clothing to his laboratory. On careful
examination, he located small
metallic particles in all the garments. Chemical analysis
revealed that the particles and
coins were composed of exactly the same metallic elements.
Confronted with this evidence,
the suspects were arrested and soon confessed to the crime.
After World War I, Locard’s
successes inspired the formation of police laboratories in
Vienna, Berlin, Sweden, Finland,

and Holland.
7
8
Locard’s exchange principle
Whenever two objects come into contact with one another,
materials are exchanged
between them.
The microscope came into widespread use in forensic science
during the twentieth century,
and its applications grew dramatically. Perhaps the leading
figure in the field of microscopy
was Dr. Walter C. McCrone. During his lifetime, McCrone
became the world’s preeminent
microscopist. Through his books, journal publications, and
research institute, he was a

tireless advocate for applying microscopy to analytical
problems, particularly forensic
science cases. McCrone’s exceptional communication skills
made him a much-sought-after
instructor, and he educated thousands of forensic scientists
throughout the world in the
application of microscopic techniques. Dr. McCrone used
microscopy, often in conjunction
with other analytical methodologies, to examine evidence in
thousands of criminal and civil
cases throughout his long and illustrious career.
Another trailblazer in forensic applications of microscopy was
U.S. Army Colonel Calvin
Goddard, who refined the techniques of firearms examination by
using the comparison
microscope. Goddard’s work allows investigators to determine
whether a particular gun has
fired a bullet by comparing the bullet with another that is test-
fired from the suspect’s
weapon. His expertise established the comparison microscope as
the indispensable tool of
the modern firearms examiner.

FIGURE 1-5 Edmond Locard.
Collection of Roger-Viollet, The Image Works
MODERN SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES
Since the mid-twentieth century, a revolution in computer
technology has made possible a
quantum leap forward in human knowledge. The resulting
explosion of scientific advances
has had a dramatic impact on the field of forensic science by
introducing a wide array of
sophisticated techniques for analyzing evidence related to a
crime. Procedures such as
chromatography, spectrophotometry, and electrophoresis (all
discussed in later chapters)
allow the modern forensic scientist to determine with
astounding accuracy the identity of a

substance and to connect even tiny fragments of evidence to a
particular person and place.
8
9
Undoubtedly the most significant modern advance in forensic
science has been the
discovery and refinement of DNA typing in the late twentieth
and early twenty-first
centuries. Sir Alec Jeffreys developed the first DNA profiling
test in 1984, and two years later
he applied it for the first time to solve a crime, identifying
Colin Pitchfork as the murderer
of two young English girls. The same case also marked the first
time DNA profiling
established the innocence of a criminal suspect. Made possible
by scientific breakthroughs
in the 1950s and 1960s, DNA typing offers law enforcement
officials a powerful tool for

establishing the precise identity of a suspect, even when only a
small amount of physical
evidence is available. Combined with the modern analytical
tools mentioned earlier, DNA
typing has revolutionized the practice of forensic science (see
Figure 1-6).
Another significant recent development in forensics is the
establishment of computerized
databases to store information on physical evidence such as
fingerprints, markings on bullets and shell casings, and DNA.
These databases have proved
to be invaluable, enabling law enforcement officials to compare
evidence found at crime
scenes to thousands of pieces of similar information. This has

significantly reduced the time
required to analyze evidence and increased the accuracy of the
work done by police and
forensic investigators.
FIGURE 1-6 Sir Alec Jeffreys.
Homer Sykes/Alamy Images Royalty Free
Although this brief narrative is by no means a complete
summary of historical advances in
forensics, it provides an idea of the progress that has been made
in the field by dedicated
scientists and law enforcement personnel. Even Sherlock
Holmes probably couldn’t have
imagined the extent to which science is applied in the service of
criminal investigation
today.
Quick Review
• Forensic science is the application of science to criminal and
civil laws that are
enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system.
9
10

• The first system of personal identification was called
anthropometry. It distinguished
one individual from another based on a series of bodily
measurements.
• Forensic science owes its origins to individuals such as
Bertillon, Galton, Lattes,
Goddard, Osborn, and Locard, who developed the principles and
techniques needed to
identify and compare physical evidence.
• Locard’s exchange principle states that, when two objects
come into contact with each
other, a cross-transfer of materials occurs that can connect a
criminal suspect to his or
her victim.
Crime Laboratories
The steady advance of forensic science technologies during the
twentieth century led to the
establishment of the first facilities specifically dedicated to

forensic analysis of criminal
evidence. These crime laboratories are now the centers for both
forensic investigation of
ongoing criminal cases and research into new techniques and
procedures to aid
investigators in the future.
HISTORY OF CRIME LABS IN THE UNITED STATES
The oldest forensic laboratory in the United States is that of the
Los Angeles Police
Department, created in 1923 by August Vollmer, a police chief
from Berkeley, California. In
the 1930s, Vollmer headed the first U.S. university institute for
criminology and
criminalistics at the University of California at Berkeley.
However, this institute lacked any

official status in the university until 1948, when a school of
criminology was formed. The
famous criminalist Paul Kirk was selected to head the school’s
criminalistics department.
Many graduates of this school have gone on to develop forensic
laboratories in other parts
of the state and country.
In 1932, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the
directorship of J. Edgar Hoover,
organized a national laboratory that offered forensic services to
all law enforcement
agencies in the country. During its formative stages, Hoover
consulted extensively with
business executives, manufacturers, and scientists, whose
knowledge and experience
guided the new facility through its infancy. The FBI Laboratory
is now the world’s largest
forensic laboratory, performing more than one million
examinations every year (see Figure
1-7). Its accomplishments have earned it worldwide recognition,
and its structure and
organization have served as a model for forensic laboratories
formed at the state and local

levels in the United States as well as in other countries.
Furthermore, the opening of the
FBI’s Forensic Science Research and Training Center in 1981
gave the United States, for the
first time, a facility dedicated to conducting research toward
new and reliable scientific
methods that can be applied to forensic science. This facility is
also used to train crime
laboratory personnel in the latest forensic science techniques
and methods.
Despite the existence of the FBI Laboratory, the United States
has no national system of
forensic laboratories. Instead, many local law enforcement
jurisdictions—city, county, and
state—each operate their own independent crime labs.
California, for example, has
numerous federal, state, county, and city crime laboratories,
many of which operate
independently. However, in 1972 the California Department of
Justice created a network of
integrated state-operated crime laboratories consisting of
regional and satellite facilities. An
informal exchange of information and expertise occurs within
California’s criminalist

community through a regional professional society, the
California Association of
Criminalists. This organization is the forerunner of a number of
regional organizations that
have developed throughout the United States to foster
cooperation among the nation’s
growing community of criminalists.
10
11
FIGURE 1-7 (a) Exterior and (b) interior views of the FBI crime
laboratory in
Quantico, Virginia.
Charles Dharapak/AP Wide World Photos

ORGANIZATION OF A CRIME LABORATORY
The development of crime laboratories in the United States has
been characterized by rapid
growth accompanied by an unfortunate lack of national and
regional planning and
coordination. Approximately four hundred public crime
laboratories operate at various
levels of government—federal, state, county, and municipal.
The size and diversity of crime
laboratories make it impossible to select any one model that
best describes a typical crime
laboratory. Although most of these facilities function as part of
a police department, others
operate under the direction of the prosecutor’s or district
attorney’s office, and some work
with the laboratories of the medical examiner or coroner. Far
fewer are affiliated with
universities or exist as independent agencies in government.
Laboratory staff sizes range

from one person to more than one hundred, and services offered
may be quite diverse or
very specialized, depending on the responsibilities of the
agency that houses the laboratory.
THE GROWTH OF CRIME LABORATORIES
Most existing crime laboratories have been organized by
agencies that either foresaw their
potential application to criminal investigations or were pressed
by the increasing demands
of casework. Several reasons explain the unparalleled growth of
crime laboratories during
the past forty years: Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s
compelled police to place greater
emphasis on securing scientifically evaluated evidence. The
requirement to advise criminal
suspects of their constitutional rights and their right of
immediate access to counsel has all
but eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool;
successful prosecution of criminal
cases requires a thorough and professional police investigation,
frequently incorporating
the skills of forensic science experts. Modern technology has
provided forensic scientists

with many new skills and techniques to meet the challenges
accompanying their increased
participation in the criminal justice system.
Coinciding with changing judicial requirements has been the
staggering increase in crime
rates in the United States over the past forty years. Although it
seems that this factor alone
could account for the increased use of crime laboratory services
by police agencies, only a
small percentage of police investigations generate evidence
requiring scientific
examination. There is one important exception, however: drug-
related arrests. All illicit-
drug seizures must be sent to a forensic laboratory for
confirmatory chemical analysis
before the case can be adjudicated. Since the mid-1960s, drug
abuse has accelerated to
11
12

nearly uncontrollable levels and has resulted in crime
laboratories being inundated with
drug specimens.
A more recent contributor to the growth and maturation of crime
laboratories has been the
advent of DNA profiling. Since the early 1990s, this technology
has progressed to the point
of individualization or near-individualization of biological
evidence. That is, traces of blood,
semen stains, hair, and saliva residues left behind on stamps,
cups, bite marks, and so on,
can be positively linked to a criminal. To meet the demands of
DNA technology, crime labs
have expanded staff and in many cases modernized their
physical plants. The labor-
intensive demands and sophisticated requirements of DNA
technology have affected the
structure of the forensic laboratory as has no other technology
in the past fifty years.
Likewise, DNA profiling has become the dominant factor in the
general public’s perception
of the workings and capabilities of the modern crime laboratory.

In coming years thousands of forensic scientists will be added
to the rolls of both public and
private forensic laboratories to process crime-scene evidence
for DNA and to acquire DNA
profiles, as mandated by state laws, from
the hundreds of thousands of individuals convicted of crimes.
This endeavor has already
added many new scientists to the field and will eventually more
than double the number of
scientists employed by forensic laboratories in the United
States. A major problem facing
the forensic DNA community is the substantial backlog of
unanalyzed DNA samples from
crime scenes. The number of unanalyzed casework DNA
samples reported by state and

national agencies varies from month to month but is estimated
at around 100,000. In an
attempt to eliminate the backlog of convicted offender or
arrestee samples to be analyzed
and entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the
federal government has
initiated funding for in-house analysis of samples at the crime
laboratory and outsourcing
samples to private laboratories for analysis.
Beginning in 2008, California began collecting DNA samples
from all people arrested on
suspicion of a felony, not just the eventual convict. The state’s
database, with approximately
one million DNA profiles, is already the third largest in the
world, behind those maintained
by the United Kingdom and the FBI. The federal government
plans to begin following
California’s policy.
CRIME LABORATORIES IN THE UNITED STATES
Historically, our federal system of government, combined with a
desire to retain local
control, has produced a variety of independent laboratories in
the United States, precluding

the creation of a national system. Crime laboratories to a large
extent mirror the
fragmented law enforcement structure that exists on the
national, state, and local levels.
The federal government has no single law enforcement or
investigative agency with
unlimited jurisdiction.
Four major federal crime laboratories have been created to help
investigate and enforce
criminal laws that extend beyond the jurisdictional boundaries
of state and local forces. The
FBI (Department of Justice) maintains the largest crime
laboratory in the world. An
ultramodern facility housing the FBI’s forensic science services
is located in Quantico,
Virginia. Its expertise and technology support its broad
investigative powers. The Drug
Enforcement Administration laboratories (Department of
Justice) analyze drugs seized in
violation of federal laws regulating the production, sale, and
transportation of drugs. The
laboratories of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (Department of
Justice) analyze alcoholic beverages and documents relating to

alcohol and firearm excise-
tax enforcement and examine weapons, explosive devices, and
related evidence to enforce
the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970. The U.S. Postal
Inspection Service maintains laboratories concerned with
criminal investigations relating to
12
13
the postal service. Each of these federal facilities offers its
expertise to any local agency that
requests assistance in relevant investigative matters.
Most state governments maintain a crime laboratory to service
state and local law
enforcement agencies that do not have ready access to a
laboratory. Some states, such as
Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas,
Washington, Oregon, Virginia,

and Florida, have developed a comprehensive statewide system
of regional or satellite
laboratories. These operate under the direction of a central
facility and provide forensic
services to most areas of the state. Having a regional laboratory
that operates as part of a
statewide system has increased the accessibility of many local
law enforcement agencies to
a crime laboratory, while minimizing duplication of services
and ensuring maximum
interlaboratory cooperation through the sharing of expertise and
equipment.
Local laboratories provide services to county and municipal
agencies. Generally, these
facilities operate independent of the state crime laboratory and
are financed directly by
local government. However, as costs have risen, some counties
have combined resources
and created multicounty laboratories to service their
jurisdictions. Many of the larger cities
in the United States

maintain their own crime laboratories, usually under the
direction of the local police
department. Frequently, a large population and high crime rates
combine to make a
municipal facility, such as that of New York City, the largest
crime laboratory in the state.
CRIME LABORATORIES ABROAD
Like the United States, most countries in the world have created
and now maintain forensic
facilities. In contrast to the U.S. system of independent local
laboratories, Great Britain has
developed a national system of regional laboratories under the
direction of the
government’s Home Office. England and Wales are serviced by
regional laboratories,
including the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (established in
1935), which services London.

Recently, the British government announced plans to either
privatize or sell off its
government-operated forensic laboratories. In the early 1990s,
the British Home Office
reorganized the country’s forensic laboratories into the Forensic
Science Service and
instituted a system in which police agencies are charged a fee
for services rendered by the
laboratory. The fees are based on “products,” or a set of
examinations that are designed to
be suitable for particular types of physical evidence and are
packaged together. The fee-for-
service concept has encouraged the creation of a number of
private laboratories that
provide services to both police and criminal defense attorneys.
LGC is the largest privately
owned provider of forensic science services in the UK. With a
staff of over 500, LGC delivers
forensic services at eight laboratories in the UK. It is expected
that under the planned
government reorganization of state forensic laboratories, the
bulk of forensic services in
England and Wales will be carried out by private laboratories
such as LGC.

In Canada, forensic services are provided by three government-
funded institutes: (1) Royal
Canadian Mounted Police regional laboratories, (2) the Centre
of Forensic Sciences in
Toronto, and (3) the Institute of Legal Medicine and Police
Science in Montreal. Altogether,
more than one hundred countries throughout the world have at
least one laboratory facility
offering forensic science services.
SERVICES OF THE CRIME LABORATORY
Bearing in mind the independent development of crime
laboratories in the United States,
the wide variation in the services offered to different
communities is not surprising. There
are many reasons for this, including (1) variations in local laws,
(2) the different capabilities
and functions of the organization to which a laboratory is
attached, and (3) budgetary and
staffing limitations.
13
14

In recent years, many local crime laboratories have been created
solely to process drug
specimens. Often these facilities were staffed with few
personnel and operated under
limited budgets. Although many have expanded their forensic
services, some still primarily
perform drug analyses. Among crime laboratories providing
services beyond drug
identification, the diversity and quality of services rendered
varies significantly. The
following forensic science units might be found in a “full-
service” crime laboratory.
BASIC SERVICES PROVIDED BY FULL-SERVICE CRIME
LABORATORIES
PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNIT
The physical science unit applies principles and techniques of
chemistry, physics, and
geology to the identification and comparison of crime-scene
evidence. It is staffed by
criminalists who have the expertise to use chemical tests and

modern analytical
instrumentation to examine items as diverse as drugs, glass,
paint, explosives, and soil. In a
laboratory that has a staff large enough to permit specialization,
the responsibilities
of this unit may be further subdivided into drug identification,
soil and mineral analyses,
and examination of a variety of trace physical evidence.
BIOLOGY UNIT
The biology unit is staffed with biologists and biochemists who
identify and perform DNA
profiling on bloodstains and other dried body fluids, compare
hairs and fibers, and identify
and compare botanical materials such as wood and plants (see
Figure 1-8).

FIREARMS UNIT
The firearms unit examines firearms, discharged bullets,
cartridge cases, shotgun shells,
and ammunition of all types. Garments and other objects are
also examined to detect
firearm discharge residues and to approximate how far from a
target a weapon was fired.
The basic principles of firearms examination are also applied to
comparing marks made by
tools (see Figure 1-9).
DOCUMENT EXAMINATION UNIT
The document examination unit studies the handwriting and
typewriting on documents in
question to ascertain their authenticity and/or source. Related
responsibilities include
analyzing paper and ink and examining indented writings (i.e.,
the partially visible
depressions that appear on the sheet of paper that was
underneath the one that was written
on), obliterations, erasures, and burned or charred documents.
14
15

FIGURE 1-8 A forensic scientist performing DNA analysis.
Mauro Fermariello/SPL/Photo Researchers, Inc.
FIGURE 1-9 A forensic analyst examining a firearm.
mediacolors/Alamy Images
PHOTOGRAPHY UNIT
A complete photographic laboratory examines and records
physical evidence. Its
procedures may require the use of highly specialized
photographic techniques, such as

digital imaging and infrared, ultraviolet,
and X-ray photography, to make invisible information visible to
the naked eye. This unit also
prepares photographic exhibits for courtroom presentation.
OPTIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY FULL-SERVICE
CRIME
LABORATORIES
TOXICOLOGY UNIT
The toxicology group examines body fluids and organs to
determine the presence or
absence of drugs and poisons. Frequently, such functions are
shared with or may be the sole
responsibility of a separate laboratory facility placed under the
direction of the medical

examiner’s or coroner’s office. In most jurisdictions, field
instruments such as the
Intoxilyzer are used to determine how much alcohol an
individual has consumed. Often the
toxicology unit also trains operators of these instruments and
maintains and services them.
LATENT FINGERPRINT UNIT
The latent fingerprint unit processes and examines evidence for
latent fingerprints when
they are submitted in conjunction with other laboratory
examinations.
POLYGRAPH UNIT
The polygraph, or lie detector, has become an essential tool of
the criminal investigator
rather than the forensic scientist. However, during the formative
years of polygraph
technology, many police agencies incorporated this unit into the
laboratory’s administrative
structure, where it sometimes remains today. In any case, its
functions are handled by
people trained in the techniques of criminal investigation and
interrogation (see Figure 1-
10).

VOICEPRINT ANALYSIS UNIT
In cases involving telephoned threats or tape-recorded
messages, investigators may require
the skills of the voiceprint analysis unit to tie the voice to a
particular suspect. To this end, a
good deal of casework has been performed with the sound
spectrograph, an instrument that
transforms speech into a visual graphic display called a
voiceprint. The validity of this
technique as a means of personal identification rests on the
premise that the sound patterns
15
16
produced in speech are unique to the individual and that the
voiceprint displays this
uniqueness.

FIGURE 1-10 An individual undergoing a polygraph test.
Courtesy Woodfin Camp & Associates Sandy
Schaeffer/Mai/Mai/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
CRIME-SCENE INVESTIGATION UNIT
The concept of incorporating crime-scene evidence collection
into the services forensic
laboratories offer is slowly gaining ground in the United States.
This unit dispatches
specially trained personnel (civilian and/or police) to the crime
scene to collect and preserve
physical evidence that will be processed at the crime laboratory.
Whatever the organizational structure of a forensic science
laboratory may be,
specialization must not impede the overall coordination of
services demanded by today’s

criminal investigator. Laboratory administrators need to keep
open the lines of
communication between analysts (civilian and uniformed),
crime-scene investigators, and
police personnel. Inevitably, forensic investigations require the
skills of many individuals.
One notoriously high-profile investigation illustrates this
process: the search for the source
of the anthrax letters mailed shortly after September 11, 2001.
Figure 1-11 shows one of the
letters and illustrates the multitude of skills required in the
investigation—skills possessed
by forensic chemists and biologists, fingerprint examiners, and
forensic document
examiners.
MyCrimeKit WebExtra 1.1
Take a Virtual Tour of a Forensic Laboratory
www.mycrimekit.com
OTHER FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICES
Even though this textbook is devoted to describing the services
normally provided by a
crime laboratory, the field of forensic science is by no means

limited to the areas covered in
this book. A number of specialized forensic science services
outside the crime laboratory
are routinely available to law enforcement personnel. These
services are important aids to a
criminal investigation and require the involvement of
individuals who have highly
specialized skills.
Three specialized forensic services—forensic pathology,
forensic anthropology, and forensic
entomology—are frequently employed at a murder scene and
will be discussed at greater
16
17
http://www.mycrimekit.com/
length when we examine crime-scene procedures in Chapter 6.
Other services, such as those

discussed next, are used in a wide variety of criminal
investigations.
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY
Forensic psychiatry is a specialized area that examines the
relationship between human
behavior and legal proceedings. Forensic psychiatrists are
retained for both civil and
criminal litigations. In civil cases, they typically perform tasks
such as determining whether
an individual is competent to make decisions about preparing a
will, settling property, or
refusing medical treatment. In criminal cases, forensic
psychologists evaluate behavioral
disorders and determine whether defendants are competent to
stand trial. Forensic
psychiatrists also examine behavior patterns of criminals as an
aid in developing a suspect’s
behavioral profile.
FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY
Practitioners of forensic odontology help identify victims based
on dental evidence when
the body is in an unrecognizable state. Teeth are composed of
enamel, the hardest

substance in the body. Because of enamel’s resilience, the teeth
outlast tissues and organs
during decomposition. The characteristics of teeth, their
alignment, and the overall
structure of the mouth provide individual evidence for
identifying a specific person. Based
on dental records such as X-rays and dental casts, even a
photograph of the person’s smile, a
set of dental remains can be matched to a suspected victim.
Another application of forensic
odontology to criminal investigations is bite mark analysis. Bite
marks are sometimes left
on a victim of assault. A forensic odontologist can compare the
marks left on a victim to the
tooth structure of the suspect (see Figure 1-12).
FORENSIC ENGINEERING
Forensic engineers are concerned with failure analysis, accident
reconstruction, and causes
and origins of fires and explosions. Forensic engineers answer
questions such as these: How
did an accident or structural failure occur? Were the parties
involved responsible? If so,
how were they responsible? Accident scenes are examined,

photographs are reviewed, and
any mechanical objects involved are inspected.
FIGURE 1-11 An envelope containing anthrax spores along with
an anonymous
letter was sent to the office of Senator Tom Daschle shortly
after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. A variety of forensic skills were
used to examine
the envelope and letter. Also, bar codes placed on the front and
back of the
envelope by mail-sorting machines contain address information
and
information about where the envelope was first processed.
Getty Images, Inc.—Getty News

17
18
FIGURE 1-12 (a) A bite mark on a victim’s body. (b)
Comparison to a suspect’s
teeth.
David Sweet, DMD, PhD, DABFP, Director BOLD Forensic
Laboratory, Vancouver, BC, Canada
FORENSIC COMPUTER AND DIGITAL ANALYSIS
Forensic computer science is a new and fast-growing field that
involves identifying,
collecting, preserving, and examining information derived from
computers and other
digital devices, such as cell phones. Law enforcement aspects of
this work normally involve

recovering deleted or overwritten data from a computer’s hard
drive and tracking hacking
activities within a compromised system. The field of forensic
computer analysis will be
addressed in detail in Chapter 18.
Quick Review
• The development of crime laboratories in the United States
has been characterized by
rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional
planning and
coordination.
• Four major reasons for the increase in the number of crime
laboratories in the United
States since the 1960s are as follows: (1) The requirement to
advise criminal suspects of
18
19

their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to
counsel has all but
eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool. (2) There
has been a staggering
increase in crime rates in the United States. (3) All illicit-drug
seizures must be sent to a
forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before
the case can be
adjudicated in court. (4) DNA profiling was developed and is
now often required.
• The technical support provided by crime laboratories can be
assigned to five basic
services: the physical science unit, the biology unit, the
firearms unit, the document
examination unit, and the photography unit.
• Some crime laboratories offer optional services such as
toxicology, fingerprint analysis,
polygraph administration, voiceprint analysis, and crime-scene
investigation.
• Special forensic science services available to the law
enforcement community include
forensic pathology, forensic anthropology, forensic entomology,
forensic psychiatry,

forensic odontology, forensic engineering, and forensic
computer and digital analysis.
Functions of the Forensic Scientist
Although a forensic scientist relies primarily on scientific
knowledge and skill, only half of
the job is performed in the laboratory. The other half takes
place in the courtroom, where
the ultimate significance of the evidence is determined. The
forensic scientist must not only
analyze physical evidence but also persuade a jury to accept the
conclusions derived from
that analysis.
ANALYZING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
First and foremost, the forensic scientist must be skilled in

applying the principles and
techniques of the physical and natural sciences to analyze the
many types of physical
evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation.
Of the three major avenues
available to police investigators for assistance in solving a
crime—confessions, eyewitness
accounts by victims or witnesses, and the evaluation of physical
evidence retrieved from the
crime scene—only physical evidence is free of inherent error or
bias.
Criminal cases are replete with examples of individuals who
were incorrectly charged with
and convicted of committing a crime because of faulty
memories or lapses in judgment. For
example, investigators may be led astray during their
preliminary evaluation of the events
and circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime.
These errors might be
compounded by misleading eyewitness statements and
inappropriate confessions. These
same concerns don’t apply to physical evidence.
What about physical evidence allows investigators to sort out
facts as they are and not as

they want them to be? The hallmark of physical evidence is that
it must undergo scientific
inquiry. Science derives its integrity from adherence to strict
guidelines that ensure the
careful and systematic collection, organization, and analysis of
information—a process
known as the scientific method. The underlying principles of
the scientific method provide a
safety net to ensure that the outcome of an investigation is not
tainted by human emotion or
compromised by distorting, belittling, or ignoring contrary
evidence.
scientific method
A process that uses strict guidelines to ensure careful and
systematic collection,
organization, and analysis of information.
19
20

The scientific method begins by formulating a question worthy
of investigation, such as who
committed a particular crime. The investigator next formulates a
hypothesis, a reasonable
explanation proposed to answer the question. What follows is
the basic foundation of
scientific inquiry: the testing of the hypothesis through
experimentation. The testing process
must be thorough and recognized by other scientists as valid.
Scientists and investigators
must accept the experimental findings even when they wish they
were different. Finally,
when the hypothesis is validated by experimentation, it becomes
suitable as scientific
evidence, appropriate for use in a criminal investigation and,
ultimately, available for
admission in a court of law.
DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
In rejecting the scientific validity of the lie detector
(polygraph), the District of Columbia
Circuit Court in 1923 set forth what has since become a

standard guideline for determining
the judicial admissibility of scientific examinations. In Frye v.
United States, the court ruled
that, in order to be admitted as evidence at trial, the questioned
procedure, technique, or
principles must be “generally accepted” by a meaningful
segment of the relevant scientific
community. In practice, this approach requires the proponent of
a scientific test to present
to the court a collection of experts who can testify that the
scientific issue before the court is
generally accepted by the relevant members of the scientific
community. Furthermore, in
determining whether a novel technique meets criteria associated
with “general acceptance,”
courts have frequently taken note of books and papers written
on the subject, as well as
prior judicial decisions relating to the reliability and general
acceptance of the technique. In
recent years many observers have questioned whether this
2

approach is flexible enough to deal with new scientific issues
that may not have gained
widespread support within the scientific community.
The Federal Rules of Evidence offer an alternative to the Frye
standard, one that some
courts believe espouses a more flexible guideline for admitting
scientific evidence. Part of
the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of all
evidence, including expert
testimony, in federal courts, and many states have adopted
codes similar to those of the
Federal Rules. Specifically, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence sets a different
standard from “general acceptance” for admissibility of expert
testimony. Under this
standard, a witness “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or
education” may offer expert testimony on a scientific or
technical matter if “(1) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony
is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably
to the facts of the case.”
In a landmark ruling in the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the
U.S. Supreme Court (see Figure 1-13) asserted that “general
acceptance,” or the Frye
standard, is not an absolute prerequisite to the admissibility of
scientific evidence under the
Federal Rules of Evidence. According to the Court, the Rules of
Evidence—especially Rule
702—assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an
expert’s testimony rests on a
reliable foundation and is relevant to the case. Although this
ruling applies only to federal
courts, many state courts are expected to use this decision as a
guideline in setting
standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

JUDGING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
In Daubert, the Court advocates that trial judges assume the
ultimate responsibility for
acting as a “gatekeeper” who determines the admissibility and
reliability of scientific
evidence presented in their courts. The Court offered some
guidelines as to how a judge can
gauge the veracity of scientific evidence, emphasizing that the
inquiry should be flexible.
Suggested areas of inquiry include the following:
1. Whether the scientific technique or theory can be (and has
been) tested
2. Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer
review and publication
20
21
3

FIGURE 1-13 A sketch of a U.S. Supreme Court hearing.
© Art Lien, Court Artist
private use only. No part of this
book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
3. The technique’s potential rate of error
4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the
technique’s operation
5. Whether the scientific theory or method has attracted
widespread acceptance within a
relevant scientific community
Some legal experts have expressed concern that abandoning
Frye’s general-acceptance test
will result in the introduction of absurd and irrational
pseudoscientific claims in the

courtroom. The Supreme Court rejected these concerns, pointing
out the inherent strengths
of the US judicial process in identifying unreliable evidence:
In this regard the respondent seems to us to be overly
pessimistic about the capabilities
of the jury and of the adversary system generally. Vigorous
cross-examination,
presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the
burden of proof are
the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but
admissible evidence.
In a 1999 decision, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, the
Court unanimously ruled that
the “gatekeeping” role of the trial judge applied not only to
scientific testimony but to all
expert testimony:
We conclude that Daubert’s general holding—setting forth the
trial judge’s general
“gatekeeping” obligation—applies not only to testimony based
on “scientific”
knowledge, but also to testimony based on “technical” and
“other specialized”
knowledge …. We also conclude that a trial court may consider

one or more of the more
specific factors that Daubert mentioned when doing so will help
determine that
testimony’s reliability. But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the
test of reliability is
“flexible,” and Daubert’s list of specific factors neither
necessarily nor exclusively
applies to all experts in every case.
The case of Coppolino v. State (examined more closely in the
Case Files feature on page 23)
exemplifies the flexibility and wide discretion that the Daubert
ruling, twenty-five years
later, apparently gave to trial judges in matters of scientific
inquiry. The issue in question
was whether the results of a new procedure that has not been
widely accepted in the
scientific community are necessarily inadmissible as evidence.
The court rejected this
argument, recognizing that researchers must devise new
scientific tests to solve the special
problems that continually arise in the forensic laboratory.
21
22

4
5
The Coppolino ruling acknowledged that even well-established
scientific procedures were
once new and unproved and noted the court’s duty to protect the
public when weighing the
admissibility of a new test. In the words of the concurring
opinion, “Society need not
tolerate homicide until there develops a body of medical
literature about some particular
lethal agent.” The court emphasized, however, that although
these tests may be new and
unique, they are admissible only if they are based on
scientifically valid principles and

techniques.
PROVIDING EXPERT TESTIMONY
Because the results of their work may be a factor in determining
a person’s ultimate guilt or
innocence, forensic scientists may be required to testify about
their methods and
conclusions at a trial or hearing.
Trial courts have broad discretion in accepting an individual as
an expert witness on any
particular subject. Generally, if a witness can establish to the
satisfaction of a trial judge that
he or she possesses a particular skill or has knowledge in a
trade or profession that will aid
the court in determining the truth of the matter at issue, that
individual will be accepted as
an expert witness. Depending on the subject area in question,
the court will usually
consider knowledge acquired

through experience, training, education, or a combination of
these as sufficient grounds for
qualification as an expert witness.
expert witness
An individual whom the court determines to possess knowledge
relevant to the trial that is
not expected of the average layperson.
CASE FILES DR. COPPOLINO’S DEADLY HOUSE CALLS
A frantic late-night telephone call brought a local physician to
the Florida home of Drs. Carl
and Carmela Coppolino. The physician arrived to find Carmela
beyond help. Carmela
Coppolino’s body, unexamined by anyone, was then buried in
her family’s plot in her home
state of New Jersey.
A little more than a month later, Carl married a moneyed
socialite, Mary Gibson. News of

Carl’s marriage infuriated Marjorie Farber, a former New Jersey
neighbor of Dr. Coppolino
who had been a having an affair with the good doctor. Soon
Marjorie had an interesting
story to recount to investigators: Her husband’s death two years
before, although ruled to
be from natural causes, had actually been murder! Carl, an
anesthesiologist, had given
Marjorie a syringe containing some medication and told her to
inject her husband, William,
while he was sleeping. Ultimately, Marjorie claimed, she was
unable to inject the full dose
and called Carl, who finished the job by suffocating William
with a pillow.
Marjorie Farber’s astonishing story was supported in part by
Carl’s having recently
increased his wife’s life insurance. Carmela’s $65,000 policy,
along with his new wife’s
fortune, would keep Dr. Coppolino in high society for the rest
of his life. Based on this
information, authorities in New Jersey and Florida obtained
exhumation orders for both
William Farber and Carmela Coppolino. After both bodies were
examined, Dr. Coppolino

was charged with the murders of William and Carmela.
Officials decided to try Dr. Coppolino first in New Jersey for
the murder of William Farber.
The Farber autopsy did not reveal any evidence of poisoning but
seemed to show strong
evidence of strangulation. The absence of toxicological findings
left the jury to deliberate
the conflicting medical expert testimony versus the sensational
story told by a scorned and
embittered woman. In the end, Dr. Coppolino was acquitted.
22
23
The Florida trial presented another chance to bring Carl
Coppolino to justice. Recalling Dr.
Coppolino’s career as an anesthesiologist, the prosecution
theorized that to commit these
murders Coppolino had exploited his access to the many potent

drugs used during surgery,
specifically an injectable paralytic agent called succinylcholine
chloride.
Carmela’s body was exhumed, and it was found that Carmela
had been injected in her left
buttock shortly before her death. Ultimately, a completely novel
procedure for detecting
succinylcholine chloride was devised. With this procedure
elevated levels of succinic acid
were found in Carmela’s brain, which proved that she had
received a large dose of the
paralytic drug shortly before her death. This evidence, along
with evidence of the same
drug residues in the injection site on her buttock, was presented
in the Florida murder trial
of Carl Coppolino, who was convicted of second-degree murder.
In court, an expert witness may be asked questions intended to
demonstrate his or her
ability and competence pertaining to the matter at hand.
Competency may be established by
having the witness cite educational degrees, participation in
special courses, membership in
professional societies, and any professional articles or books
published. Also important is

the number of years of occupational experience the witness has
had in areas related to the
matter before the court.
Unfortunately, few schools confer degrees in forensic science.
Most chemists, biologists,
geologists, and physicists prepare themselves for careers in
forensic science by combining
training under an experienced examiner with independent study.
Of course, formal
education in the physical sciences provides a firm foundation
for learning and
understanding the principles and techniques of forensic science.
Nevertheless, for the most
part, courts must rely on training and years of experience as a
measurement of the
knowledge and ability of the expert.
Before the judge rules on the witness’s qualifications, the
opposing attorney may cross-
examine the witness and point out weaknesses in training and
knowledge. Most courts are
reluctant to disqualify an individual as an expert even when
presented with someone
whose background is only remotely associated with the issue at

hand. The question of what
credentials are suitable for qualification as an expert is
ambiguous and highly subjective
and one that the courts wisely try to avoid.
The weight that a judge or jury assigns to “expert” testimony in
subsequent deliberations is,
however, quite another matter. Undoubtedly, education and
experience have considerable bearing on what value should be
assigned to the expert’s
opinions. Just as important may be his or her demeanor and
ability to explain scientific data
and conclusions clearly, concisely, and logically to a judge and
jury composed of
nonscientists. The problem of sorting out the strengths and
weaknesses of expert testimony

falls to prosecution and defense counsel.
The ordinary or lay witness must testify on events or
observations that arise from personal
knowledge. This testimony must be factual and, with few
exceptions, cannot contain the
personal opinions of the witness. On the other hand, the expert
witness is called on to
evaluate evidence when the court lacks the expertise to do so.
This expert then expresses an
opinion as to the significance of the findings. The views
expressed are accepted only as
representing the expert’s opinion and may later be accepted or
ignored in jury deliberations
(see Figure 1-14).
The expert cannot render any view with absolute certainty. At
best, he or she may only be
able to offer an opinion based on a reasonable scientific
certainty derived from training and
experience. Obviously, the expert is expected to defend
vigorously the techniques and
conclusions of the analysis, but at the same time he or she must
not be reluctant to discuss
impartially any findings that could minimize the significance of

the analysis. The forensic
scientist should not be an advocate of one party’s cause but an
advocate of truth only. An
adversary system of justice must give the prosecutor and
defense ample opportunity to
offer expert opinions and to argue the merits of such testimony.
Ultimately, the duty of the
judge or jury is to weigh the pros and cons of all the
information presented when deciding
guilt or innocence.
23
24
FIGURE 1-14 An expert witness testifying in court.
Taylor Jones/ZUMA Press/Newscom
The necessity for the forensic scientist to appear in court has
been imposed on the criminal

justice system by a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case, Melendez-
Diaz v. Massachusetts. The
Melendez-Diaz decision addressed the practice of using
evidence affidavits or laboratory
certificates in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic analysts.
In its reasoning, the Court
relied on a previous ruling, Crawford v. Washington where it
explored the meaning of the
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In the Crawford
case, a recorded statement
by a spouse was used against her husband in his prosecution.
Crawford argued that this was
a violation of his right to confront witnesses against him under
the Sixth Amendment, and
the Court agreed. Using
6
7

the same logic in Melendez-Diaz, the Court reasoned that
introducing forensic science
evidence via an affidavit or a certificate denied a defendant the
opportunity to cross-
examine the analyst. In 2011, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the
Melendez-Diaz decision in
the case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by rejecting a substitute
expert witness in lieu of the
original analyst:
The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause
permits the prosecution to
introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial
certification—made for
the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court
testimony of a scientist
who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test
reported in the
certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order

does not meet the
constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be
confronted with the analyst who
made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial,
and the accused had an
opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.
Watch a Forensic Expert Witness Testify—I
www.mycrimekit.com
Watch a Forensic Expert Witness Testify—II
www.mycrimekit.com
FURNISHING TRAINING IN THE PROPER RECOGNITION,
COLLECTION, AND PRESERVATION OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE
The competence of a laboratory staff and the sophistication of
its analytical equipment have
little or no value if relevant evidence cannot be properly
recognized, collected, and
preserved at the site of a crime. For this reason, the forensic
staff must have responsibilities
that will influence the conduct of the crime-scene investigation.

24
25
8
The most direct and effective response to this problem has been
to dispatch specially
trained evidence-collection technicians to the crime scene. A
growing number of crime
laboratories and the police agencies they service keep trained
“evidence technicians” on 24-
hour call to help criminal investigators retrieve evidence. These
technicians are trained by
the laboratory staff to recognize and gather pertinent physical
evidence at the crime scene.
They are assigned to the laboratory full-time for continued
exposure to forensic techniques

and procedures. They have at their disposal all the proper tools
and supplies for proper
collection and packaging of evidence for future scientific
examination.
Unfortunately, many police forces still have not adopted this
approach. Often a patrol
officer or detective collects the evidence. The individual’s
effectiveness in this role depends
on the extent of his or her training and working relationship
with the laboratory. For
maximum use of the skills of the crime laboratory, training of
the crime-scene investigator
must go beyond superficial classroom lectures to involve
extensive personal contact with
the forensic scientist. Each must become aware of the other’s
problems, techniques, and
limitations.
The training of police officers in evidence collection and their
familiarization with the
capabilities of a crime laboratory should not be restricted to a
select group of personnel on
the force. Every officer engaged in fieldwork, whether it be
traffic, patrol, investigation, or

juvenile control, often must process evidence for laboratory
examination. Obviously, it
would be difficult and time consuming to give everyone the in-
depth training and attention
that a qualified criminal investigator requires. However,
familiarity with crime laboratory
services and capabilities can be gained through periodic
lectures, laboratory tours, and
dissemination of manuals prepared by the laboratory staff that
outline the proper methods
for collecting and submitting physical evidence to the
laboratory (see Figure 1-15).
A brief outline describing the proper collection and packaging
of common types of physical
evidence is found in Appendix I. The procedures and
information summarized in this
appendix are discussed in greater detail in forthcoming
chapters.

FIGURE 1-15 Representative evidence-collection guides
prepared by various
governmental agencies.
Quick Review
• A forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles
and techniques of the
physical and natural sciences to analyzing evidence that may be
recovered during a
criminal investigation.
• The cases Frye v. United States and Daubert! v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. set
guidelines for determining the admissibility of scientific
evidence into the courtroom.
• An expert witness evaluates evidence based on specialized
training and experience.
• Forensic scientists participate in training law enforcement
personnel in the proper
recognition, collection, and preservation of physical evidence.

EXPLORING FORENSIC SCIENCE ON THE INTERNET
There are no limits to the amount or type of information that
can be found on the Internet.
The fields of law enforcement and forensic science have not
been left behind by advancing
computer technology. Extensive information about forensic
science is available on the
25
26
Internet. The types of information available on websites range
from simple explanations of
the various fields of forensics to intricate details of crime-scene
reconstruction. People can
also find information on which colleges offer degree programs
in forensics and webpages
posted by law enforcement agencies that detail their activities
as well as employment
opportunities.

GENERAL FORENSICS SITES
Reddy’s Forensic Home Page (www.forensicpage.com) is a
valuable starting point. This site
is a collection of forensic webpages in categories such as new
links in forensics; general
forensic information sources; associations, colleges,
http://www.forensicpage.com/
and societies; literature and journals; forensic laboratories;
general webpages; forensic-
related mailing lists and newsgroups; universities; conferences;
and various forensic fields
of expertise.
Another website offering a multitude of information related to
forensic science is Zeno’s

Forensic Site (www.forensic.to/forensic.html). Here users can
find links related to forensic
education and expert consultation, as well as a wealth of
information concerning specific
fields of forensic science.
A comprehensive and useful website for those interested in law
enforcement is Officer.com
(www.officer.com). This comprehensive collection of criminal
justice resources is organized
into easy-to-read subdirectories that relate to topics such as law
enforcement agencies,
police association and organization sites, criminal justice
organizations, law research pages,
and police mailing-list directories.
WEBSITES ON SPECIFIC TOPICS
AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC FIREARM
IDENTIFICATION
This website contains an extensive collection of information
relating to the identification of
firearms. An individual can explore in detail how to examine
bullets, cartridge cases, and
clothing for gunshot residues and suspect shooters’ hands for
primer residues. Information

on the latest technology involving the automated firearms
search system IBIS can also be
found on this site.
An Introduction to Forensic Firearm Identification
www.mycrimekit.com
CARPENTER’S FORENSIC SCIENCE RESOURCES
This site provides a bibliography involving forensic evidence.
For example, the user can find
references about DNA, fingerprints, hairs, fibers, and
questioned documents as they relate
to crime scenes and assist investigations. This website is an
excellent place to start a
research project in forensic science.
26
27
http://www.forensic.to/forensic.html
http://officer.com/
http://www.officer.com/

Carpenter’s Forensic Science Resources
www.mycrimekit.com
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR NETWORK
For those who are interested in learning the process of crime-
scene investigation, this site
provides detailed guidelines and information regarding crime-
scene response and the
collection and preservation of evidence. For example,
information concerning the
packaging and analysis of bloodstains, seminal fluids, hairs,
fibers, paint, glass, firearms,
documents, and fingerprints can be found through this website.
It explains the importance
of inspecting the crime scene and the impact forensic evidence
has on the investigation.
Crime Scene Investigator Network
www.mycrimekit.com

CRIMES AND CLUES
Users interested in learning about the forensic aspects of
fingerprinting will find this to be a
useful and informative website. The site covers the history of
fingerprints, as well as
subjects pertaining to the development of latent fingerprints.
The user will also find links to
other websites covering a variety of subjects pertaining to
crime-scene investigation,
documentation of the crime scene, and expert testimony.
Crimes and Clues
www.mycrimekit.com
INTERACTIVE INVESTIGATOR—DÉTECTIVE INTERACTIF
At this outstanding site, visitors can obtain general information

and an introduction to the
main aspects of forensic science from a database on the subject.
They can also explore
actual evidence gathered from notorious crime scenes. Users
will be able to employ
deductive skills and forensic knowledge while playing an
interactive game in which they
must help Detective Wilson and Detective Marlow solve a
gruesome murder.
Interactive Investigator
www.mycrimekit.com
The Chemical Detective
www.mycrimekit.com
THE CHEMICAL DETECTIVE
This site offers descriptions of relevant forensic science
disciplines. Topics such as
fingerprints, fire and arson, and DNA analysis are described in
informative layperson’s
terms. Case histories describe the application of forensic
evidence to criminal

investigations. Emphasis is placed
on securing and documenting the crime scene. The site directs
the reader to other
important forensic links.
Questioned-Document Examination
www.mycrimekit.com
QUESTIONED-DOCUMENT EXAMINATION
This basic, informative webpage answers frequently asked
questions concerning document
examination, explains the application of typical document
examinations, and details the

basic facts and theory of handwriting and signatures. There are
also links to noted
document examination cases that present the user with real-life
applications of forensic
document examination.
CHAPTER REVIEW
• Forensic science is the application of science to criminal and
civil laws that are enforced
by police agencies in a criminal justice system.
• The first system of personal identification was called
anthropometry. It distinguished
one individual from another based on a series of bodily
measurements.
• Forensic science owes its origins to individuals such as
Bertillon, Galton, Lattes,
Goddard, Osborn, and Locard, who developed the principles and
techniques needed to
identify and compare physical evidence.
• Locard’s exchange principle states that, when two objects
come into contact with each
other, a cross-transfer of materials occurs that can connect a
criminal suspect to his or

her victim.
• The development of crime laboratories in the United States
has been characterized by
rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional
planning and
coordination.
• Four major reasons for the increase in the number of crime
laboratories in the United
States since the 1960s are as follows: (1) The requirement to
advise criminal suspects of
their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to
counsel has all but
eliminated confessions as a routine investigative tool. (2) There
has been a staggering
27
28
1.

2.
3.
increase in crime rates in the United States. (3) All illicit-drug
seizures must be sent to a
forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before
the case can be
adjudicated in court. (4) DNA profiling was developed and is
now often required.
• The technical support provided by crime laboratories can be
assigned to five basic
services: the physical science unit, the biology unit, the
firearms unit, the document
examination unit, and the photography unit.
• Some crime laboratories offer optional services such as
toxicology, fingerprint analysis,
polygraph administration, voice-print analysis, and crime-scene
investigation.
• Special forensic science services available to the law
enforcement community include
forensic pathology, forensic anthropology, forensic entomology,
forensic psychiatry,
forensic odontology, forensic engineering, and forensic
computer and digital analysis.

• A forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles
and techniques of the
physical and natural sciences to analyzing evidence that may be
recovered during a
criminal investigation.
• The cases Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. set
guidelines for determining the admissibility of scientific
evidence into the courtroom.
• An expert witness evaluates evidence based on specialized
training and experience.
• Forensic scientists participate in training law enforcement
personnel in the proper
recognition, collection, and preservation of physical evidence.
KEY TERMS
expert witness 22
Locard’s exchange principle 8
scientific method 20
REVIEW QUESTIONS
The application of science to law describes ______________.
The Spaniard ______________ published the first writings

about the detection of poisons
and the effects of poisons on animals, and he is considered the
father of forensic
toxicology.
A system of personal identification using a series of bodily
measurements was first
devised by ______________, and he called it ______________.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The fictional exploits of ______________ excited the
imagination of an emerging
generation of forensic scientists and criminal investigators.
One of the first functional crime laboratories was formed in
Lyons, France, in 1910
under the direction of ____________, who developed
____________, a theory stating that
there is mutual transfer of material when two objects make
contact with each other.
The application of science to criminal investigation was

advocated by the Austrian
magistrate ______________.
True or False: The important advancement in the fields of blood
typing and document
examination were made in the early part of the twentieth
century. ______________
The Italian scientist ______________ devised the first workable
procedure for typing dried
bloodstains.
Early efforts at applying scientific principles to document
examination are associated
with ______________.
The first DNA profiling test was developed by ______________
in 1984, and it was first
used in 1986 to identify the murderer of two young English
girls.
True or False: Computerized databases exist for fingerprints,
bullets, cartridge cases,
and DNA. ______________
The first forensic laboratory in the United States was created in
1923 by the
______________ Police Department.

Although no national system of forensic laboratories exists in
the United States, the
state of ______________ is an excellent example of a
geographical area in the United States
that has created a system of integrated regional and satellite
laboratories.
A decentralized system of crime laboratories currently exists in
the United States under
the auspices of various governmental agencies at the
______________,
______________,______________, and ______________ levels
of government.
In contrast to the United States, Britain has a crime laboratory
system characterized by
a national system of ______________ laboratories.
Four important federal agencies offering forensic services are
______________,
______________, ______________, and ______________.
28
29

17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
The application of chemistry, physics, and geology to the
identification and comparison
of crime-scene evidence is the function of the ______________
unit of a crime laboratory.
The examination of blood, hairs, fibers, and botanical materials
is conducted in the
______________ unit of a crime laboratory.
The examination of bullets, cartridge cases, shotgun shells, and
ammunition of all types
is the responsibility of the ______________ unit.

The study of handwriting and typewriting on questioned
documents is carried out by
the ______________ unit to ascertain authenticity and/or
source.
The examination of body fluids and organs for drugs and
poisons is a function of the
______________ unit.
The ______________ unit dispatches trained personnel to the
scene of a crime to retrieve
evidence for laboratory examination.
True or False: Special forensic science services available to the
law enforcement
community include forensic pathology, forensic anthropology,
and forensic astronomy.
______________
The “general acceptance” principle, which serves as a criterion
for the judicial
admissibility of scientific evidence, was set forth in the case of
______________.
In the case of ______________, the Supreme Court ruled that,
in assessing the admissibility
of new and unique scientific tests, the trial judge did not have
to rely solely on the

concept of “general acceptance.”
True or False: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kumho Tire
Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael
restricted the “gatekeeping” role of a trial judge to scientific
testimony only.
______________
A Florida case that exemplifies the flexibility and wide
discretion that the trial judge has
in matters of scientific inquiry is ______________.
A(n) ______________ is a person who can demonstrate a
particular skill or has knowledge
in a trade or profession that will help the court determine the
truth of the matter at
issue.
True or False: The expert witness’s courtroom demeanor may
play an important role in
deciding what weight the court will assign to his or her
testimony. ______________

30.
31.
32.
33.
True or False: The testimony of an expert witness incorporates

his or her personal
opinion relating to a matter he or she has either studied or
examined. ______________
True or False: In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed issues
relating to the
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in the case of
Crawford v. Washington.
______________
The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision ______________
addressed the practice of using
affidavits in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic examiners.
The ability of the investigator to recognize and collect crime-
scene evidence properly
depends on the amount of ______________ received from the
crime laboratory.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
APPLICATION AND CRITICAL THINKING
Most crime labs in the United States are funded and operated by
the government and
provide services free to police and prosecutors. Great Britain,
however, relies on
private laboratories that charge fees for their services and keep
any profits they make.
Suggest potential strengths and weaknesses of each system.
Police investigating an apparent suicide collect the following
items at the scene: a note
purportedly written by the victim, a revolver bearing very faint

fingerprints, and traces
of skin and blood under the victim’s fingernails. What units of
the crime laboratory will
examine each piece of evidence?
List at least three advantages of having an evidence-collection
unit process a crime
scene instead of a patrol officer or detective.
What legal issue was raised on appeal by the defense in Carl
Coppolino’s Florida
murder trial? What court ruling is most relevant to the decision
to reject the appeal?
Explain your answer.
A Timeline of Forensic Science The following images depict
different types of evidence
or techniques for analyzing evidence. Place the images in order
pertaining to the time
in history (least recent to most recent) at which each type of
evidence or technique was
first introduced. Do this using the letters assigned to the
images.
29
30

(A), (B) Dorling Kindersley Media Library; (D)
Photolibrary.com; (E) Phototake NYC; (F) Getty Images,
Inc. - Hulton Archive Photos; (G) Getty Images Inc. - PhotoDisc
http://photolibrary.com/
6.

Evidence Processing at the Crime Laboratory You are the
evidence technician at the
front desk of the state crime lab. You receive the following
items of evidence to check in
on a very busy day. You must indicate which unit each piece of
evidence must be sent to
for analysis. Your crime lab has a criminalistics (physical
science) unit, a drug unit, a
biology unit, a firearms unit, a document examination unit, a
toxicology unit, a latent
fingerprinting unit, an anthropology unit, and a forensic
computer and digital analysis
unit.
A.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
B.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
C.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
D.
_____________________________________________________

_________________
E.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
F.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
G.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
H.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
I.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
J.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
K.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
L.
_____________________________________________________
_________________
M.
_____________________________________________________

_________________
30
31
(A) and (E) Getty Images Inc. - Stone Allstock; (B) Michael P.
Gadomski/Photo Researchers Inc.; (C)
Mikael Karlsson/Arresting Images; (D) German Meneses
Photography; (F) Getty Images Inc. -
Photodisc/Royalty Free; (G) CORBIS - NY; (H), (J), (L), (M)
Dorling Kindersley Media Library; (I) Alamy
Images; (K) Corbis RF
ENDNOTES
1. Two excellent references are André A. Moenssens, Carol E.
Henderson, and Sharon Gross Portwood, Scientific
Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases, 5th ed. (New York:
Foundation Press, 2007); and Werner U. Spitz, ed.,
Medicolegal Investigation of Death, 4th ed. (Springfield, Ill.:

Charles C. Thomas, 2006).
2. 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
3. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
4. 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
5. 223 So. 2d 68 (Fla. App. 1968), app. dismissed, 234 So. 2d
(Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 (1970).
31
32
6. 129 S. Ct. 2527 U.S. Mass., (2009).
7. 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed. 2d 177 (2004).
8. 564 U.S. 131 S. Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed. 2d 610 (2011).

1152017 University of Phoenix Forensic Science From the Cr.docx

More Related Content

Similar to 1152017 University of Phoenix Forensic Science From the Cr.docx (20)

More from moggdede (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

1152017 University of Phoenix Forensic Science From the Cr.docx