lecture 1 Flashcards
(37 cards)
Forensics
application of science in crime and civil laws
Forensis
foreign name relating to a debate/speech club w/ legal consequences
Civil law
deals w/ the disputes b/w individuals or organizations in which compensation is awarded to the victim.
- Can be fined but not thrown in jail
Criminal law
body of law that deals w/ crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses
Forensic Science
Any science that can be applied to a legal matter
Applied Science
using an aspect of science to apply it to a legal issue
ex: forensic science
Theoretical science
science is studied for the sake of the knowledge
EX: Physics, chemistry, biology
Physical evidence
real things/tangible things
Testimonial
someone has to testify under oath
Swear in court to tell the truth when testifying
Demonstrative
type of evidence include photographs, videotapes, models, maps, graphs, computer graphics and animations.
things produced
Frye vs. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
- single question: Defense counsel offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deletion test made upon defendant. Expert was not allowed
- general acceptance test
general acceptance
expert witness may testify provided the method by which that evidence was obtained is generally acceptance by experts in the particular field in which it belongs
Dr. Marston
- made the polygraph test. Marston concluded that frye was telling the truth when he recanted (i.e., he was innocent)
- marston “private life” affected his teaching career
- worked for universal studios after he moved
Rule 701. opinion testimony by lay witnesses
- aka “fact witness”
- matters of perception or first-hand knowledge
- no opinions except common, shared knowledge
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
- extensive experience or knowledge in a specific field or discipline beyond that expected from a layperson
- expected to offer opinions within expertise
CSI effect- prosecutor
( juries have unrealistic expectations for crime labs & won’t convict unless those expectations are met)
CSI effect- defense
( juries have unrealistic expectations for crime labs & trust the science too much)
problem of CSI effect
the csi effect influences jurors to have unrealistic expectations of forensic science during a criminal trial and affect jurors decisions in the conviction or acquittal process
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), [Exclusionary Rule and incorporation
of Amend. XIV to the States]
Primary Holding - Law enforcement cannot use Fourth Amendment-unconstitutional search evidence in court.
- the seized materials were NOT Fourth Amendment protected b/c there was NO WARRANT issued!
- State court criminal trials cannot include evidence from unconstitutional searches and seizures
interpretation: the fourteenth amendment “incrpotates” the bill of rights (first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh (partial), and eighth (partial))
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), [Objectively reasonable
Expectation of Privacy]
→ The Government’s phone call eavesdropping violated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
→ The Fourth Amendment covers spoken statements and physical goods.
→ The Fourth Amendment protects persons, not locations, therefore it is unaffected by physical intrusion
→ This case’s monitoring was not warranted, even if it was tightly confined.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), [Novel technology],
While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some cases, the search of a home’s interior (the prototypical and thus most legally challenged area of protected privacy) has a ready set of requirements of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists and is acknowledged to be reasonable.
Removing this baseline expectation would allow police technology to violate Fourth Amendment privacy. Thus, using sense-enhancing technology to gain information about the home’s interior that could not have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutional right territory” constitutes a search, at least when the technology is not in broad public usage. This preserves government-imposed privacy as it was before the Fourth Amendment.
→ The District Court must decide whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause without the imaging in this instance, and if not, if there is any other basis for admitting that evidence.
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), [Plain View]
a v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), [Plain View]
In order to search and seize an object without a warrant, the authorities must have reasonable cause to suspect it is evidence of a crime or violation.
Hicks’s apartment floor was shot through, injuring a guy below. Hicks’s apartment included three firearms and a stocking mask when police investigated the crime. A warrantless search revealed stolen stereo equipment. After police headquarters confirmed his suspicions, the officer relocated certain components, noted their serial numbers, and confiscated them.
→ The Court determined the stereo equipment search and seizure violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Scalia maintained the “plain view” theory, which allows police to collect evidence without a warrant, citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971). Scalia stated that warrantless seizures without “special operational needs” require probable cause. The officer’s seizure of the stereo equipment was unconstitutional because he had just “reasonable suspicion” that it was stolen
Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960), [Abandoned evidence]
→ Justice Frankfurter also ruled that INS and FBI materials were admissible at trial. He saw no constitutional justification to restrict the search for deportability evidence of a legitimately arrested immigrant more than the search for criminal evidence. Justice Frankfurter stated that the procedural differences between criminal and deportation arrests were not constitutional since INS agents had to apply to the District Director for a warrant.
→ William Douglas and Hugo Black objected. He advised against letting administrative authorities like INS agents visit residences without warrants, particularly if they’re conducting a criminal inquiry. Justice Douglas noted that the FBI failed to secure a search warrant throughout the inquiry, which led to Abel’s detention and hotel room search.
→Justices William Brennan, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, and William Douglas objected. He acknowledged Congress’ control over outsiders and deportation’s civil remedy status, but he disagreed with the majority’s use of deportation warrants in criminal trials. Since a senior INS official issued the deportation warrant, there was no independent investigation into the arrest and seizure. Justice Brennan stated that an administrative search is never Fourth Amendment compliant.
Schmerber v. California
in 1964 Armando schmerber and a passenger left a tavern in LA (at night), skidded of the road and hit a tree
he refused a blood test but police officers directed the hospital staff to take the blood sample
