Through your text readings, you've learned about the various types of evidence that is commonly generated by investigators in order to prove a criminal act has occurred. Keeping this information in mind, my question for you in relation to this assignment is... If you could only have one type of evidence going into a trial proceeding, which do you feel is more valuable/important to a criminal investigation case where you are trying to prove guilt and why: forensic evidence such as latent prints, blood spatter patterns, hair/trace/fiber evidence or a suspect confession? In this consideration I'm going to ask that you exclude DNA from the forensic evidence aspect as while it fits within that category, it is the one type of forensic evidence that is scientifically valid - the other types of forensic evidence are not scientifically backed in any manner and are very subjective and open to interpretation. Again, I would like you to only pick one or the other consideration and then make sure to fully defend your answer. Which do you feel is more likely to generate a guilty finding in a court proceeding? Just because forensic evidence is not scientifically valid it does not mean that juries will not accept it and it routinely is utilized/presented in court proceedings when available. Will it matter if the trial is in front of a jury or whether it is in front of a judge (bench trial)? When responding to this question, please remember that unlike what Hollywood and media portrays, forensic evidence is nowhere near 100% absolute (even DNA is often successfully challenged/excluded) and many times the manner by which it is collected, tested and handled is often successfully challenged in court proceedings. Confessional testimony can also be successfully challenged on the basis of duress and other factors so there is no right or wrong answer here... I simply wish to gauge your overall viewpoint on this subject. Here are some articles that highlight the issues relating to forensic evidence and how it is in no way concrete/absolute. As you learned (or will soon learn) from watching the documentary for the Video Review 1 assignment, forensics are not considered a validated science and are very subjective by nature. Feel free to use some of the examples from the documentary when responding. https://apnews.com/article/henry-lee-fabricated-murder-evidence-ef08de1e15148b3d48129ead10924009 https://www.propublica.org/article/bloodstain-pattern-analysis-jury-wrongful-conviction-acquitted-exonerated https://innocenceproject.org/overturning-wrongful-convictions-involving-flawed-forensics/

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/the-failures-of-forensic-science/

https://law.duke.edu/news/garretts-autopsy-crime-lab-illuminates-flaws-forensic-science/ https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2016/10/30/questions-about-ex-bci-scientist/22749463007/ https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2016/12/25/ohio-s-crime-lab-struggles/22661451007/ https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/26/debate-rages-over-quality-science/22661362007/ Here is a link to a fantastic documentary and related articles that outline how in rare instances, a suspect interview can lead to a false confession (again, these instances are few and far between - I don't want you to think this is commonplace). It is a very long documentary but one of the best I've viewed and again, you don't have to watch for this assignment however there are some great related articles/info provided on the site: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/ Here is a related article that provides some insight into how approved/popular suspect interview tactics can potentially lead to a coerced confession:

https://investigatemidwest.org/2017/08/11/controversial-criminal-interrogation-technique-suspected-of-producing-false-confessions-under-fire/

REPSOND TO TWO PEERS

#1SARAH

Sarah Franks

In my opinion, I believe that suspect confession is more valuable evidence to have going into a trial proceeding, especially in a case where you are trying to prove guilt. While forensic evidence such as latent prints,blood, spatter patterns, hair/trace/fiber evidence can be useful in proving a criminal act, they have been proven not always scientifically valid and are often subject to interpretation.

I base my opinion on the Brandon Mayfield case, as well as many others. Regarding Brandon Mayfield, and the 2004 Madrid train bombings, and how they found one latent fingerprint on a plastic bag, on the scene. The FBI concluded Brandons fingerprint was 100 percent match. Later only to be discovered it was not his fingerprint, and Mayfield settled with the FBI for their mistake for two milliion dollars.

We can also look at how a confession may be taken under duress, coercion, or if they were not given their Miranda rights before questioning. In these cases, a confession can not be used, and evidence would have to be so strong that it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge of jury as the gult of the defendant. In some cases , evidence may be enough to prove that a certain fact is more likely than not, but not to the level of " beyond a reasonable doubt." This is sometimes referred to as " preponderance of the evidence" or " clear and convincing" evidence.

Here are a few additional cases where DNA evidence was wrong , lab errors, contamination,or misinterpretations.

1. in 2012, the FBI disclosed that its laboratory had made errors in analyzing the DNA evidence of hundreds of cases,leading to the possibility of false convictions.
2. in 2015, the New York City Medical Examiner's office admitted that DNA evidence has been incorrectly analyzed in several cases,leading to the arrest of innocent individuals.
3. In 2019, a lab in Florida was found to have been manipulating DNA evidence in order to secure convictions.

The list is longer than this, much longer in cases where mistakes have been made in DNA evidence results, inprisoning innocent people for this exact evidentiary error mistakes.

My answer is a confession over evidence.

(Sources- FBI lab error: (2012) ABC News-FBI Admits to Errors in DNA Analysis in hundreds of cases.

New York City Medical Examiner ),( NY Daily News-(2015) DNA Evidence Manipulated in Multiple Cases by NYC Medical Examiners Office.)

PEER #2

Giana Vitale

This question really made me think but when it comes down to which type of evidence I would rather have going into a trial proceeding, I would choose the forensic evidence. Forensic evidence such as prints, trace evidence, and blood spatter provide an objective and a tangible link between the crime scene and the suspect. Although people may disagree, this type of evidence can often be more reliable as it is less susceptible to coercion compared to a suspect confession. I strongly believe that forensic evidence is way more likely to generate a guilty finding in a court proceeding. Even though lots of forensic procedures have faced scrutiny with their scientific soundness, juries most of the time find forensic evidence very captivating and compelling. The presence of physical evidence that ties a suspect to a crime scene can create a strong account that proves difficult for the defense to dispute, especially when presented by an expert witnesses. It can also depend on whether or not the trial is in front of a jury or a bench trial, because juries might be particularly swayed by the scientific nature of forensic evidence especially with the "CSI Effect." Judges are also likely to respect forensic evidence more than the average person appointed to a jury. Overall, I believe solid forensic evidence that is properly presented can be a useful tool and the best way to go about a court proceeding.