Not Guilty

Convicts Proven Not Guilty, Forensic Science in Court

Forensic Science in the Courtroom

Flower Mound, TX- Science and court. The two seem to be two different fields of study, but in reality, they can go hand in hand. In court cases, forensic scientists provide evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or other characteristics that point directly to a suspect.

In the Real CSI video, forensic scientists provided proof of fingerprints, DNA, and an odor analysis to declare who was guilty in killings and holdings of weapons. Although science helps in a legal argument, the forensic science is not always correct or believed by the jury.

Odor analysis and DNA are also widely used forensic sciences. Odor analysis is used to determine where a dead body has been because an expert knows what death composition smells like. DNA is the best out all forensic sciences because it gets only correct results. It calls into question some of the others. Fingerprints and odor analysis can provide evidence, but if DNA is also mentioned in the case, it can overrule the first two. When forensic science is used, innocent people are let out from jail and the correct people are put in jail. Without the use of DNA, some forensics could convict the wrong people.

Another important reason for correct forensics is that juries and judges believe experts because they do not always know any different. For the best decision in court to be made experts must know their science.

To determine who was in possession of the weapons in Spain, forensic scientists collected a fingerprint and then compared them until a match was made. The match was made with a man in Oregon named Brandon Mayfield who had never even been to Spain, but since fingerprints were widely accepted and no two people were believed to have the same fingerprints, he was arrested. Not till later, did the scientists find out that a different man had been caught and arrested. Mayfield was released and the scientists could no longer testify that the science of fingerprints was infallible with a zero error rate like they had before the case.

In the case held at Marcus High School in Court Room 1, fingerprints were called into question. Though there was a discrepancy as to where the fingerprints were actually found, there were fingerprints found at the scene of the crime coated in sodium carbonate which the convicted man worked with often. Since the head scientist of the case never got up to speak, no other science to the case can be mentioned at this time. The convicted man was released because, as Lyndie Ho said, “The prosecution gave only circumstantial evidence,” and as Courtney Langley added, “The prosecution did not give substantial evidence.” Overall, the court was held well and as Rachel said, “Everybody knew their part of the case and it applied to science and daily life.”