lecture 1

Question 1

Forensics

Answer 1

application of science in crime and civil laws

Question 2

Forensis

Answer 2

foreign name relating to a debate/speech club w/ legal consequences

Question 3

Civil law

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Criminal law

Answer 4

body of law that deals w/ crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses

Question 5

Forensic Science

Answer 5

Any science that can be applied to a legal matter

Question 6

Applied Science

Answer 6

using an aspect of science to apply it to a legal issue
ex: forensic science

Question 7

Theoretical science

Answer 7

science is studied for the sake of the knowledge
EX: Physics, chemistry, biology

Question 8

Physical evidence

Answer 8

real things/tangible things

Question 9

Testimonial

Answer 9

someone has to testify under oath
Swear in court to tell the truth when testifying

Question 10

Demonstrative

Answer 10

type of evidence include photographs, videotapes, models, maps, graphs, computer graphics and animations.
things produced

Question 11

Frye vs. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

general acceptance

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Dr. Marston

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

Rule 701. opinion testimony by lay witnesses

Answer 14

• aka “fact witness”
• matters of perception or first-hand knowledge
• no opinions except common, shared knowledge

Question 15

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

Answer 15

• extensive experience or knowledge in a specific field or discipline beyond that expected from a layperson
• expected to offer opinions within expertise

Question 16

CSI effect- prosecutor

Answer 16

( juries have unrealistic expectations for crime labs & won’t convict unless those expectations are met)

Question 17

CSI effect- defense

Answer 17

( juries have unrealistic expectations for crime labs & trust the science too much)

Question 18

problem of CSI effect

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), [Exclusionary Rule and incorporation
of Amend. XIV to the States]

Answer 19

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))

Question 20

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), [Objectively reasonable
Expectation of Privacy]

Answer 20

→ 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.

Question 21

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), [Novel technology],

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), [Plain View]

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960), [Abandoned evidence]

Answer 23

→ 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.

Question 24

Schmerber v. California

Answer 24

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

Question 25

evanescent

Answer 25

evidence that would disappear

Question 26

direct evidence

Answer 26

evidence that directly links a person to a crime; it demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proved (eyewitnesses)
no inference required

Question 27

indirect (circumstantial) evidence:

Answer 27

evidence that gives rise to a logical inference that the fact (at issue) exists, but which does not, on its face, prove the fact at issue
inferences required
EX: a suspect in a crime was seen by a witness fleeing the scene on foot after a convenience store robbery was taken place moments after

Question 28

FRE 401: test for relevant evidence

Answer 28

• it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
• the fact is of consequence in determining the action
  EX: did the man have two legs?
  It’s true but it has no consequence in relating to the issue

Question 29

FRE 403: general admissibility of relevant evidence

Answer 29

-relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise
- irrelevant evidence is not admissible

Question 30

FRE 403: excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons

Answer 30

the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
types of witnesses :
- lay (fact)
- expert
- character

Question 31

probative

Answer 31

likely to prove

Question 32

lay

Answer 32

fact witnesses

Question 33

character witnesses

Answer 33

lay witnesses but not a fact witness

Question 34

FRE 701: opinion testimony by lay witnesses

Answer 34

if a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
- rationally based on the witnesses perception
- helpful;y to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue
- not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702

Question 35

FRE 702: testimony by expert witnesses

Answer 35

a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion
You don’t have to be a scientist, just an expert for that specific skill/experience
Offering your expert opinion matters.

Question 36

“daubert” factors

Answer 36

• wether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested
• wether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
• its known or potential error rate
• the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
• whether it has attraction widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community

Question 37

burden of proof

Answer 37

criminal action: beyond a reasonable doubt, moral certainty
civil actions: preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not
clear and convincing, highly probable