1. Recall in the Best Investigator case involving the murder of Tanner and Dobbs, that the skull collected from the coffee table was not that of Tanner but rather a female child. Suppose the prosecution team does not see this piece of evidence as relevant in the trial of Lewis regarding the murder of Tanner. Does it follow that these results do not have to be supplied to Lewis' defense team that the skull was not Tanner? 2. Recall that Cassidy Massinger, AKA Omega's fingerprints were on quite a bit of evidence. However, Pi's fingerprints were only found on the door to the stable. (Pi was the individual referred to as the doctor alleged to have drugged the victims). Is this defendant (Pi) entitled to the information about Omega's fingerprints being located in many more places? Why? 3. The Forensic Anthropologist who analyzed the skull referenced above is out of the country and thus unavailable to testify about his findings at trial. Investigator Wurst loves to be right and hates to be wrong, so he insists on testifying in court that he knew the skull did not have anything to do with the case when he picked it up. Aside from this ridiculous theory, why should Wurst not be permitted to testify about the age and gender of the skull? 4. Remember the police officer who sought your advice about collecting and preserving the dresses as evidence in the back seat of the van that crashed during the police chase when Tory Smith was rescued? The officer followed your instructions on packaging the dresses in separate paper bags but did not submit that evidence directly to the lab. Instead, he waited until you were available and turned the evidence directly over to you. Was this acceptable? What, if anything else would he have needed to do? 5. Regarding the investigation of the Fraternity, suppose that Omega cooperated and an investigation into Alpha's drug trafficking results in probable cause to arrest him. Then Alpha is arrested along with several others during a fentanyl transaction. Later the prosecution brings forth formal charges for distribution of controlled dangerous substances and conspiracy to distribute. The suspected drugs seized from the ranch have been analyzed and forensic chemists determined the substances to be the same drugs you suspected them to be including heroin, Rohypnol and Oxycontin. While Alpha's fingerprints were not found on any of the packaging for those drugs, testimony indicates he paid suppliers who delivered those drugs to the ranch. At the trial, Alpha's attorney attempts to have that evidence suppressed. Will he prevail? What will guide the judge's decision? 6. Before the term ends, we will need to revisit the Inside- Inside case where drugs were seized from We Save Lives as it remains unsolved. As part of the ongoing investigation much has been discovered including from additional review of biometric systems. Why do you suppose the prosecution does not want the case to hang on the biometrics? 7. Recall from the Triple Confession case the shirt with gunpowder reside that you had analyzed to determine the distance between the victim and shooter. Suppose the forensic scientist only provides you with highly technical results such as: The Gunshot Residue Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry (SEM/EDS) show particles containing lead (Pb), barium (Ba) and antimony (Sb) ranging from 0.5 to 10 microns." Is this acceptable? Why or why not? 8. Update: In the Triple Confession Case, Mr. Whipper passed away in surgery not only exposing the killer to murder charges, but civil liability. His parents are suing Hattie Ann for wrongful death. The forensic expert is being called to testify about a determination that the shooter was only about 4 inches from Mr. Whipper which is being interpreted as the shooting was intentional. But as you know the 4 inches is an estimation based on opinion. Is it possible that the judge will permit the forensic examiner to testify to his or her opinion? 9. Suppose the prosecutor involved in the murder of Dobbs, Sr. wants to meet with you in preparation for the trial. Investigator Best tells you that you really should meet with the prosecutor before you testify, while Investigator Wurst says this is a bad idea. Best says this is standard practice. Wurst says it's cheating, and you will get in trouble for trying to get your story straight with the prosecutor before testifying. Who is right? What should you do?