Browsing by Subject "criminal evidence"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Admission of Scientific Evidence in a Post-Crawford World
    (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) Nielson, Eric
    The goal of this Note is to evaluate the requirements for admitting scientific evidence in criminal cases. Part I discusses Confrontation Clause case law since Ohio v. Roberts, ex-amines the standards for the admission of scientific evidence, and considers the weaknesses of cross-examination and eye-witness testimony. Part II discusses actions that can be taken to improve the quality of scientific information available to defense attorneys, prosecutors, the courts, and the public. This Note concludes that holding scientific evidence to the Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmacueticals, Inc. standard, coupled with public disclosure, facilitates the just and effective operation of our criminal justice system.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Scientific and Legal Developments in Fire and Arson Investigation Expertise in Texas v. Willingham
    (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) Dioso-Villa, Rachel
    The forensic sciences, as a form of professional knowledge, are changing with new advancements in technology and continuing research and development. With the National Academy of Science’s recent call for more research and testing of the forensic sciences, the criminal justice system is faced with the challenges of handling cases where convictions are based on outdated or discredited evidence. In light of technological advancements in the field, this article examines the evolution of fire- and arson-investigation knowledge over the course of a highly publicized capital murder case. The history of arson investigation is discussed, as is the legal admissibility of such expert testimony. Arson investigation expertise stems from non-scientific or experience-based origins, yet is conveyed in court as scientific fact. The article identifies the dangers of admitting such testimony into court without scrutiny. The lack of scientific validation of investigative methods, overreaching scientific claims based on case facts and witness statements, and fire investigators’ susceptibility to contextual bias are discussed. The article raises questions as to whether and how the legal system has propagated the misuse of arson investigation testimony and how outdated understandings of evidence may impact the identification of future miscarriages of justice.