Search

This article examines a number of critical issues associated with the collection of forensic evidence at the crime scene. It argues that the crime scene is one of the most crucial aspects of an investigation and that the scene of the crime is where good forensic science begins. The article begins by demonstrating that high quality and useful evidence leading to accurate and fair criminal justice outcomes can only occur if the scene is processed effectively and professionally. Reducing risk of unjust outcomes is especially important in serious matters, such as homicide and sexual assault, for two reasons. First, the more serious the matter, the more likely that evidence mishandling can lead to wrongful imprisonment. Second, the more serious the matter, the more personnel will be involved, and the more likely that these personnel will be multidisciplinary (law enforcement, medicine, law, forensic science) and multi-organisational (health, justice, private legal/medical, police). Many of these personnel will have divergent work practices and divergent views about what their role is, or should be, during investigations and court trials. Drawing on empirical data from interviews with crime scene examiners, police, forensic scientists, lawyers and judges in a number of Australian jurisdictions, the article discusses the management of the crime scene as a critical issue in the justice process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Socio-legal ethnographies have focused largely on the dramaturgical themes present in the competing performances seen in adversarial trials. Drawing on ethnographic observations of British homicide investigations, we illuminate the hidden "backstage" space of prosecution barristers' case conferences. Using Goffman's dramaturgical framework, we analyze the interactions, deliberations, and negotiations that are enacted between barristers, homicide detectives, forensic scientists, and other specialists. To our knowledge, the work that happens in these conferences has never been documented. Our findings reveal how prosecution narratives evolve and are tested behind the scenes before being performed in court. We pay particular attention to the role of anticipatory work in guiding how criminal justice actors choreograph the prosecution case. The findings add to our understanding of narrative case building and elaborate Goffman's dramaturgical framework. We discuss the implications of our findings for due process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]