Examine Forensic Examine Forensic Testimony Name Class Date Professor Examine Forensic Testimony Forensic evidence has become more and more important in the court case for proving the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant. Due to new technology the world of forensics is becoming more and more advanced providing law enforcement with all types of new investigatory tools and ways for the court to prove or disprove guilt. It is essential for law enforcement agencies to have trained forensic personnel with the skills to properly collect the evidence first to ensure the evidence does not become lost, destroyed, or damaged and the forensic evidence is accepted in a court of law. Improper collection of evidence is only one of many potential challenges associated with forensic evidence but it is an important challenge that must be addressed. Forensic evidence is collected at the crime scene. If the evidence is not properly documented and collected it can be found to be unreliable in the court process. In order for forensic evidence to be accepted in a court of law it must be documented through sketches, photographs, and video tapings and it must be collected using accepted standard forensic collection methods. If evidence is not properly documented or collected the chain of evidence is broken and the court will exclude the evidence from the court case. The chain of evidence refers to an important aspect of forensic involving the movement of evidence. In order to show the court the evidence was located and collected at the scene and then taken directly to the lab for analysis as well as being stored properly at the lab there needs to be clear documentation. This starts with photographing the evidence located at the scene and clearly documenting each step of the collection and analysis process. When forensic evidence is presented in court it must be able to meet a specific legal standard before it can be accepted as reliable evidence in a court of law. The legal standard that is applied to testing reliability is either the Frye or Daubert Standard. In the Frye standard forensic evidence must be collected and analyzed employed widely accepted scientific methods. The Daubert standard came after Frye and requires not only that the evidence be collected and analyzed using widely accepted forensic methods, the scientific must be tested using the scientific method, and the evidence must be reliable and relevant. Each state applies a different standard. States with Frye have less of requirement for reliability than states with Daubert. The CSI Effect is the one of the biggest problem facing courts in the 21st Century. Due to shows, such as CSI, showing a glamorized version of the forensic process, juries expect prosecutors and defense attorneys to present forensic evidence, showing guilt or innocence but most of this burden is put on the state not the defense (Vergano, 2011). The truth is most ca ...

1. Examine Forensic
Examine Forensic Testimony
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Examine Forensic Testimony
Forensic evidence has become more and more important in
the court case for proving the guilt or innocence of a criminal
defendant. Due to new technology the world of forensics is
becoming more and more advanced providing law enforcement
with all types of new investigatory tools and ways for the court
to prove or disprove guilt. It is essential for law enforcement

2. agencies to have trained forensic personnel with the skills to
properly collect the evidence first to ensure the evidence does
not become lost, destroyed, or damaged and the forensic
evidence is accepted in a court of law.
Improper collection of evidence is only one of many
potential challenges associated with forensic evidence but it is
an important challenge that must be addressed. Forensic
evidence is collected at the crime scene. If the evidence is not
properly documented and collected it can be found to be
unreliable in the court process. In order for forensic evidence to
be accepted in a court of law it must be documented through
sketches, photographs, and video tapings and it must be
collected using accepted standard forensic collection methods.
If evidence is not properly documented or collected the
chain of evidence is broken and the court will exclude the
evidence from the court case. The chain of evidence refers to an
important aspect of forensic involving the movement of
evidence. In order to show the court the evidence was located
and collected at the scene and then taken directly to the lab for
analysis as well as being stored properly at the lab there needs
to be clear documentation. This starts with photographing the
evidence located at the scene and clearly documenting each step
of the collection and analysis process.
When forensic evidence is presented in court it must be able
to meet a specific legal standard before it can be accepted as
reliable evidence in a court of law. The legal standard that is
applied to testing reliability is either the Frye or Daubert
Standard. In the Frye standard forensic evidence must be
collected and analyzed employed widely accepted scientific
methods. The Daubert standard came after Frye and requires not
only that the evidence be collected and analyzed using widely
accepted forensic methods, the scientific must be tested using
the scientific method, and the evidence must be reliable and
relevant. Each state applies a different standard. States with
Frye have less of requirement for reliability than states with
Daubert.

3. The CSI Effect is the one of the biggest problem facing
courts in the 21st Century. Due to shows, such as CSI, showing
a glamorized version of the forensic process, juries expect
prosecutors and defense attorneys to present forensic evidence,
showing guilt or innocence but most of this burden is put on the
state not the defense (Vergano, 2011). The truth is most cases
are tried and won using circumstantial evidence and most police
departments do not have the high tech forensic tools available
to television police departments.
Prosecutors are tasked with convincing juries to accept
circumstantial evidence over the sought after forensic evidence.
Juries are hesitant to convict a criminal without forensic
evidence, such as DNA, showing they committed the crimes.
Shows like CSI constantly tell the audience a criminal suspect
cannot be at a crime scene without leaving evidence behind of
their presence. When criminal investigators do not find this
evidence at the scene or do not have the money to test the
thousands or hairs or fibers located at the scene juries are
convinced it because of the failures of police and do not
convict.
Prosecutor Misuse
Forensics has brought many benefits but it has also brought
many other challenges. There are many issues impacting the
presentation of evidence within the court setting. The
prosecutor plays an essential role in the criminal justiceprocess.
For one they are adversaries of the defense fighting to prove the
guilt of the defendant while on the other hand they play a quasi
judicial role. Prosecutors have more discretion than any other
member of the court. They have the discretion to give any
defendant a plea deal or even decide who will be charged and
tried. In their quasi judicial role they can abuse their power by
misrepresenting forensic evidence.
A prosecutor has a duty to seek justice. The duty of the
prosecutor is to seek the truth derived from several different
sources (Gershman, 2003). The first source is the prosecutor’s

4. obligation to protect the defendant’s due process rights. This
means the prosecutor must share all evidence with the defense.
Suppressing evidence is misuse of the evidence. The second
source is a legal duty to act ethically and not to abuse the
extended power of their office. Because prosecutors have
greater discretion than other members of the court they must not
abuse their power.
Since the prosecutor has greater discretion over the evidence
it can create a larger concern over the fairness of the process
especially in presenting forensic evidence. If the prosecutor
present evidence as valid forensic science while knowing the
science is not trusted the fact finding process is flawed.
Prosecutors must fight for the victims and the community but
never use their authority to violate justice in order to win. The
prosecutor must be under the same scrutiny as the defense in
presenting reliable evidence and ensure the process is not only
fair but just. Justice cannot be served if the prosecutor abuses
their power by presenting false or misleading forensic evidence.
Judicial rulings regarding forensic science
Judges plays the most important role in the presentation of
evidence because if judge deems the evidence to be unreliable
then it will not be presented in a court of law. The judge will be
presented with forensic evidence which will be evaluated based
on the Frye of Daubert Standard. As discussed previously the
Frye and Daubert standards are the legal standards applied to
assessing forensic evidence before it can be presented in the
court. The standard applied in the court is dependent on the
standard accepted in the state. States with more rigid evidence
standards employ Daubert.
Even with the Daubert and Frye Standards there are still
different application of evidence by judges. One judge may be
more lenient in the allowance of forensic evidence while
another judge may apply stricter standards. For example in a
state with the Frye Standard a judge may accept forensic
evidence as widely accepted by scientific community but under
the Daubert standard the same evidence would not be

5. acceptable. Bite mark evidence is a good example of evidence
accepted by some courts but not by others.
When judges accept forensic evidence in one state as
reliable and valid but not in another state it creates confusion
especially when the case reaches the federal courts. All
evidence has a different level of acceptance in courts but
especially forensic evidence. Courts that see forensic evidence
on a continuous basis will be far more likely to accept that
evidence than a judge who has never or rarely sees evidence
developed though forensic processes. The difference in
acceptance in courts comes into the question the evaluation
processes being used by judges. Judges must see through the
deceptive practices of some prosecutors and get educated abput
the science being presented.
National Framework for Reform of Forensic Science
Forensic science has created a new type of evidence collection
and analysis practices that assist police in identifying criminal
suspects and proving their guilt. The problem with the forensic
word is due to new technology it is always changing and
evolving requiring an evolution of the acceptance of forensic
evidence in court. Standardized methods are essential to
ensuring the way evidence is collected and analyzed the same.
If the collections and analysis methods are the same every item
it will be easier for judges to give the same ruling on the same
evidence in every court. In current society this is just not the
case.
Standardized methods would be beneficial but can be
difficult to ensure these methods stay the same. Technology and
forensic methods are constantly changing and adapting
requiring a different approach (Lissitzen, 2008). In order for
these methods to become more standardized the methods for
collecting and analyzing the evidence will need to stay the
same. This will not happen in the technological revolution with
forensic methods constantly becoming more and more effective.
Currently collection methods are standardized leading to wider
acceptance in courts. This is the same for some forensic

6. analysis methods.
Conclusion
Forensic evidence has forever changed the court process and
the types of evidence proving guilt. Through forensic evidence
the identity of criminal offender can be determined or the
evidence can be used to prove guilt or innocence. In order to
ensure forensic evidence is used properly and the evidence is
accepted by the judge standardized methods must be developed
and employed by all law enforcement agencies.
References
Gershman, B. (2003).Scientific Evidence by Prosecutors.
Oklahoma City University Law
Review, Vol. 28(1): p.25
Lissitzen, C. (2008). Forensic Evidence in Court. Carolina
Academic Press, Durham, North
Carolina
Vergano, D. (2011). Judges growing critical of 'CSI' evidence.
Retrieved February 23, 2014 from
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/
05/judges-becoming-more
Civil Commitment
Civil Commitment and the Mentally Ill
Name
Class

7. Date
Professor
Civil Commitment and the Mentally Ill
Civil commitment is a court process where a judge makes a
determination on whether or not a person is mentally ill and
should receive mental health treatment or be committed to a
mental institution. When a person is subjected to the
commitment process in the state of Oregon they are referred to
as the Alleged Mentally Ill Person (AMIP). In order for a
person to be subjected to the civil commitment process the court
process must be initiated by a doctor, county health officer, a
judge, or two relatives of the AMIP as well as any licensed
member of the mental health community. This includes
counselors, psychologists, clinicians, and psychiatrists.
Insanity statues in Oregon include Guilty Except for Insanity
(GEI). This insanity defense allows the criminal defendant to
plead and be found to be mentally ill or retarded but still guilty
of the crime they committed. Once the criminal defendant is
found Guilty Except for Insanity they will come under the
authority of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) who
will place them either in a mental health facility or place them
in jail under the care of a mental health clinician. If the
criminal defendant accepted a plea deal or they are found guilty
of a misdemeanor they will either be placed in a mental

8. institution or be required to attend mental health treatment.
The Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) was
established in 1977 with the Guilty Except for Insanity defense.
The PSRB has five members including a psychiatrist, a
psychologist, a member with a parole or probation background,
an attorney with criminal trial experience and a member of the
public (Joondepth, 2009). The PSRB will review the case of the
mentally insane defendant to determine their placement. Instead
of just placing a criminal defendant in a mental institution only
to be allowed to enter back into society after a short time, the
state created the PSRB to conduct an assessment of their mental
health.
Many other states have changed their insanity laws to
include Guilty but Mentally Ill (GMI) or Guilty Except for
Insanity (GEI) in order to ensure the mentally ill are punished
for their crimes and not just released back into society to
commit further crimes. Due to the shift in perception
concerning the insanity defense this type of defense is rarely
used because unless the criminal defendant has an extensive
mental health history they will not be found to be legally
insane. In Oregon the insanity defense is hard to prove. The
burden of evidence falls to the defendant to prove they were
legally insane at the time of the crime.
In Oregon (and around the country) juries are generally
skeptical of the insanity defense (Joondepth, 2009). This is
because prior to the 1970’s anyone could claim they were insane
and get off with a slap on the wrist. In order to prevent
criminals faking symptoms of mental illness from getting away
with their crimes the state of Oregon began to develop new
policies concerning the insanity defense. Instead of just
allowing defendants to plead insane for their crimes they now
were responsible for providing the court with a plethora of
proof they were legally insane when they committed the crime.
In most cases the insanity defense is employed for cases, such
as murder.
The insanity defense is one of the most controversial

9. defenses employed by defendants in court cases. After John
Hinckley was found not guilty of attempting to kill President
Reagan in 1984 the public was outraged. As a result of public
pressure the insanity defense in American society began to
change. The insanity defense asserts that a criminal defendant
should not be found guilty due to the defendant's insanity (Cole,
2011). In Oregon this is not the case. Being mentally ill does
not mitigate the guilty of the mentally ill or mentally retarded
defendant.
In Oregon, unlike other states that have rejected the insanity
defense, a criminal defendant still has a chance to plead guilty
and be placed in a mental institution. Some of these defendants
will never go to jail for the crime they have committed but
instead will receive care through the Psychiatric Security
Review Board (PSRB) and then be released back into society.
Other more serious offenders face the possibility of serving
time once they have become more mentally stable. For example
for the crime of murder the criminal defendant could be found
guilty spend time in a mental institution before serving out a
prison sentence.
In the state of Oregon the psychologists that are a part of the
PSRB are responsible for determining the fate of the mentally
ill criminal defendant. The judge will rely heavily on the
opinion of the PSRB in determining whether or not a criminal
defendant should stand trial or if they can apply the insanity
defense. Since judges are not mental health specialists it is
especially important for psychologists to be a part of the
process in determining if a criminal defendant can stand trial or
if they have sufficient history of mental illness to be considered
insane or to commit the type of crime they have committed.
Without the assistance of a psychologist the judge will not be
provided with reliable information in which to make their
determination.
When a mentally ill person is not seen as insane and is
subsequently convicted of their charges and incarcerated, they
face difficulties because many states have difficulty in

10. providing appropriate psychological treatment for these
offenders while they are incarcerated. What happens in states
where the mentally ill are required to go straight to jail they
may not receive the type of treatment they need to function
properly. This is not a problem experienced in the state of
Oregon due to their creative approach and the use of the
Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB). The PSRB protects
the mentally ill criminal and ensures they have access to the
treatment they need.
References
Cole, M. (2011). The high price of Oregon's insanity plea:
Patients sent to the state mental
hospital cost millions. Retrieved March 18, 2014 from
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/the_high
_price_of_oregons_insa.html
Joondepth, B. (2009). Insanity Defense and Public Morality.
Retrieved March 18, 2014 from
http://www.droregon.org/the-dro-blog/draft

11. Civil Commitment and the Mentally Ill