Conclusion

In conclusion, many factors shape how the evidence is received, understood and eventually trusted. In the adversarial Criminal Justice System, forensic scientists are called upon by the prosecution, defence or jointly, as impartial scientific experts who will use their scientific expertise to analyse traces and deliver meaning within the context of a framework of circumstances of the case. The prosecution’s objectives may influence the selection of items submitted to the forensic science laboratory for analysis, instructions provided to forensic scientists, questions posed by the police to the forensic scientists, or lines of inquiry suggested for further scientific exploration. As independent and objective scientific advisers to the administration of justice, forensic scientists and expert witnesses must promote the integrity of their own technical evidence (Roberts, 2009). Trustworthiness of the forensic evidence as it is presented in court isn’t just about the science; it is about how well that science is interpreted, communicated and challenged where appropriate within the courtroom.

This week we looked at the crime scene to courtroom process with the focus on the courtroom. The police and the forensic scientists shared Dave’s case with the prosecution’s legal team and a suspect was identified using DNA and digital evidence.

Next week we’ll see what research underpins this work. For example, we’ll look at how different groups of people trust and distrust forensic science and their impact on criminal investigations and outcomes.

Now go to Week 4.