Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
TX Innocence Project
The problem with scientific evidence
There is an upsurge in the scientific means of conducting investigations into issues, and the use of the latest technologies that are geared towards making things easier when it comes to unraveling the mysteries surrounding the evidence required in courts of law for prosecution. This is a trend that is global and has deeply taken root in the U.S.A.
However, from the look of various cases as those found in The Texas Tribune (2012) it is apparent that there are various errors that can accompany the scientific evidence hence they cannot be relied upon on an absolute accuracy or implementation basis.
There are various problems that are associated with the scientific evidence as presented by Robert D. Meyers et.al (1999) numerated as below:
The problem of cost: this is one of the first and foremost prohibitive facts about the scientific evidence. It has been proven that it is quite expensive to process proper evidence in the science laboratories hence many would rather do away with a case or give in to a case rather than struggling to raise the finances to carry out DNA analysis or the other...
However, it has been in the public domain that there are various inaccuracies that usually come with the scientific evidence hence the undue influence that the scientific evidence has over the years exerted on the legal system overshadows even the inaccuracies that may come with it.
The problem of comprehension: the scientific evidence use in the courts often present the challenge of lack of comprehension among the lay fact finders who may not be in a position to effectively understand the scientific and technological evidences and jargons therein that may be presented in the court.
The problem of comprehension by the jury: there is a possibility that the jury may not understand fully the scientific evidence that may be presented before them. This is due to the fact that the jury may be specialized in the legal implications of the evidence but not in the field from which…
References
The Texas Tribune, (2012). Innocence Project of Texas. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/innocence-project-of-texas/
Robert D. Meyers et.al., (1999). Complex Scientific Evidence and the Jury. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/judicature/article10.html
Exclusionary Rule excludes tainted evidence from some criminal proceedings, the rationale being protection of 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights by control of law enforcement behavior. However, there are a number of exceptions to the Rule for various reasons, as well as alternative remedies for law enforcement's unconstitutional actions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court created the Exclusionary Rule for several well-founded reasons. Analysis of the Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule,
The U.S., however, is the only industrial democracy, common law or otherwise, in which courts must throw out tainted evidence in criminal trials. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing and expanding on this principle have collectively come to be known as the "exclusionary rule." Although the rule had its origins in arguments about the morality of obtaining a conviction while relying on improperly obtained evidence, its primary modern justification
For example, one provision of the Patriot Act "permitted law enforcement to obtain access to tapping stored voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant," even though "obtaining the former requires a much lower evidentiary showing" and wiretapping more accurately seems to mirror surveillance technology, rather than single-incident searches of the premises for specific items (Fourth amendment, 2009, Wex Law). Another provision of the Patriot
An exception to this is a search conducted by officer acting in objective "good faith" and wit the inclusion of a warrant obtained on the basis of probable cause. A further provision holds that, if a jury has reasonable reason to believe that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Article, it should disregard the evidence obtained. The Texas Penal Code works in tandem with the exclusionary rule, in
Exclusionary rule exists to protect the rights of citizens to due process when accused or suspected of criminal activities. There are therefore certain constitutional specifications according to which incriminating information can be seized. Without adhering to these specifications, seized items cannot be allowed as evidence against an accused person in a criminal trial. There are, however, certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including fleeing suspects and the good faith exception. In
The Court cited language from Boyd in support of its proposition. The Boyd Court had held that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments "apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but