Skip to main content
header search
ahihi OpenLearn
OpenLearn
Menu
sticky search

About this free course

Become an OU student

Share this free course

Course content Course content
Do you trust forensic science in the criminal justice system?
Do you trust forensic science in the criminal justice system?

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

More free courses

1 Crown Court at Leicester Castle Business School

Watch this short video and explanation of the layout of a courtroom. In case you need a recap, remember the Crime to courtroom diagram [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] in Week 2.

Download this video clip.Video player: Video 1: Layout of a courtroom
Show transcript | Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 1: Layout of a courtroom

Emma Johnston:
Welcome to the courtroom.
This is where, if you think about that crime scene to court process, forensic evidence could end up being presented.
So in front of you, that’s where the judge would sit in a case like this.
Over to the left here, we’ve got the jury box.
On this side, there’s the witness box.
And that’s where any sort of forensic scientist would present evidence or say perhaps police officers, crime scene investigators, other kinds of expert witnesses or eyewitnesses as well.
Next to that, we’ve got a press box.
And here in front of me, this is the dock where the defendant would stand.
And then just where I am here, we’ve got a public gallery.
End transcript: Video 1: Layout of a courtroom
Download
Video 1: Layout of a courtroom
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

This is the sort of courtroom in which Dave’s case would be heard. Click on the image to listen to the audio or read the transcript.

Download this audio clip.Audio player: Audio 1: The courtroom
Show transcript | Hide transcript

Transcript: Audio 1: The courtroom

Speaker
In our case, the court would want to reach a final judgement of whether the suspect (Mike) is guilty or innocent of the alleged crime. To be able to achieve this, the court will be interested to know the involvement of the suspect in the crime.
During the trial, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who must, based on relevant evidence gathered in the investigation of the case, including eyewitnesses, professional witnesses (the police) and expert witnesses (the forensic scientists), prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime alleged.
Conversely, the defence’s role is to cast doubt on the prosecution’s allegation and argue that the suspect innocent did not commit the alleged crime. The forensic science evidence (DNA and digital evidence) in this case will be crucial in understanding the involvement (or not) of the suspect in this case.
Expert witnesses, in this case forensic scientists with expertise in the areas of DNA and digital evidence, can explain how these pieces of evidence relate to the case.
End transcript: Audio 1: The courtroom
Download
Audio 1: The courtroom
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

In this case, the expert witnesses are called by the prosecution, which is typical (Leonetti, 2024), though experts could be called by the defence or the court itself. The experts present DNA and digital forensic evidence, not for the benefit of the party that commissioned them but to inform the court. The expert’s main duty is to help the court by interpreting the scientific findings and evaluating these findings by offering opinions as to their meaning within the case context. The opinions will be presented in the form of a written report, oral testimony, or both, by the forensic scientist who undertook the analysis and authored the report.

Activity 1 Remaining impartial

Timing: 5 minutes

a. 

1: really easy


b. 

2: easy


c. 

3: neither easy nor difficult


d. 

4: difficult


e. 

5: really difficult


The correct answers are a, b, c, d and e.

Answer

Research shows that forensic experts are not immune to bias. Yet, it is rare that they would acknowledge their own biases or even fancifully think that they can overcome them with their willpower (Kukucka, et al., 2017). This is changing as this is gaining more attention though it is questionable whether simply reminding experts of their duty to be objective and impartial might be enough to address expert biases.

The prosecution will begin questioning the expert during what is known as examination in chief. Afterwards, the defence will have the same opportunity to ask the expert further questions based on their evidence and answers during examination in chief, during what is known as cross-examination. These questions oppose each other as they are used to address the partisan objectives of the prosecution or defence. During testimony, experts must respond directly to the questions asked and remain impartial. Further, they must communicate their scientific findings, staying within the bounds of their expertise. The evidence must be relevant and help the court answer specific questions about the case. The trustworthiness of the expert and their evidence, whether in written form or spoken testimony, will depend on:

  • accuracy
  • scientific underpinning and robustness of their analysis
  • clarity, including explaining complex scientific techniques in lay persons terms
  • transparency
  • completeness
  • lack of ambiguity
  • impartiality
  • suitability for its intended purpose.

(ISO 21043 Part 5)