By Ethan Woods 2nd period
The Cheryl Spoonmore case vs. Real CSI
In court people will use science to prove someone is innocent or guilty and in the Cheryl Spoonmore case science was used once again to prove that she was innocent. The prosecution tried to used forensic science to prove Cheryl Spoonmore was guilty. They tried to say that she poison the victim and then strangled the victim with a rope. Since Cheryl Spoonmore's fingerprints were on the rope they accused her of strangling the victim and killing the victim. The defense had some expert witnesses that helped prove that Cheryl Spoonmore was not guilty. At the end of the trial the jury decided that cheryl Spoonmoore was not guilty. Forensic science was not enough evidence in this case to put Cheryl Spoonmore in jail. In the Real CSI video I watched there was a lot of forensic science that was used for evidence in court cases. In the video there was many opinions about forensic science, some liked it in court cases and others didn't like it. In one trial they accused a man of bombing a place in Spain because it had his fingerprints on it and right when he was about to go to jail they found out there was someone else that almost had the exact fingerprints as the person who got accused. In the Casey Anthony case they used forensic science to prove that she was guilty but that was all the evidence they had so even though casey Anthony most likely did it the judge called her innocent. In both these stories they used forensic science to prove a person is innocent or guilty. In some cases it can be a good thing but in other cases forensic science was a bad thing.