Course Description
 
This course acquaints the criminal justice and forensic science student with various ways in which scientific methods and results aid the judicial process. The Scientific Method has the capability of answering many of the "who, what, where and when" questions commonly disputed in the resolution of alleged criminal and civil wrongdoings. Accordingly, the use of tangible evidence and expert witnesses by the police and courts has increased several fold in the past two decades. Still, there are a number of individual, organizational, financial, and legal barriers which limit the utilization of science by police officers, attorneys and judges. This course examines these constraints and such other critical issues as the quality and accuracy of results produced by the nation's forensic laboratories.  In addition, recent appellate court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the rules governing the admissibility of various scientific tests and opinions are reviewed.  Ethical conflicts facing forensic scientists working in the legal system are explored and discussed. Organizational issues and pressures that may affect the objectivity of forensic laboratory results are also considered. Current research in the field also is discussed, ranging from the latest laboratory techniques used to examine evidence, to studies which evaluate the impact of scientific evidence on the solution and adjudication of crimes.  In summary, the goal of this course is to 'demystify' the forensic sciences and to make the student aware of the policies, practices and attitudes influencing the use of science in the administration of justice.
 

Required Readings

I have prepared a collection of articles and monographs on the central course themes, and this compilation is available from the UIC Bookstore. I am also distributing excerpts from the Carnegie Commission Report on Science and Technology in Judicial Decision Making. Whereas most of our reading will be devoted to the use and misuse of science in the criminal justice system, this report shows there are similar science/law issues facing society at large.  In addition, I have placed other scientific evidence reading materials on reserve in the graduate lounge (Rm. 4014 BSB) in the Criminal Justice Department.  Students are expected to keep up-to-date with the readings and to lead the weekly discussion one time during the term.

Forensic Science and the Internet

One of the other goals of this course is to familiarize students with forensic science sources on the Internet, plus have the students tap into a forensic discussion group.  In order to subscribe to the Forens-L discussion group, send an e-mail to mailserv@acc.fau.edu and enter the message, "SUBSCRIBE FORENS-L Your Real Name."  I would like a member of the class to prepare a question for submission to the mailing list each week, and to then sit back and read the responses.  I am distributing a copy of one of the more lively discussions that has taken place on forens-l in the past two months.

I am also including several forensic science/law web pages on this syllabus that students may find interesting.

UIC Forensic Science Program
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
AAAS - "The Interdependence of Science and Law"
Truth in Justice
California Association of Criminalists
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence
Office of the Inspector General's Special Report on the FBI Laboratory
FBI Laboratory Report - One Year Later
Zeno's Forensic Page
Cambridge University Press - Mistaken Identity
Michigan State University - Forensic Science Program
Junk Science
National Academy of Science - DNA Evidence
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
Forensic Science Education Resource
Sherlockian Holmepage
 
Course Requirements/Evaluation

I am structuring the class a bit differently with regard to assignments this semester to try to improve student involvement and engagement with the course material.  First, all students are expected to subscribe to the forens-l discussion group and monitor the discussions on a weekly basis and bring interesting issues to the attention of the class.  I also want each student to submit one question to the list during the semester on a topic in the forensic sciences for which they would like to receive comments from around the forensic world.  All students should send me an e-mail the first week of class so I know they have their e-mail account.  When you have prepared your forens-l question, e-mail it to me first and I will approve it before you send it.  To receive their 10 points for this internet exercise, students are expected to summarize and analyze the responses to their question and make a brief (5-10 minute) presentation on their discussion results to the class.  Second,  every student will be assigned to lead (or co-lead) the discussion of readings one week during the semester.  Students will be able to earn 10 points for leading the discussion during their assigned week.  Students will be required to meet with me during the hour prior to class and submit two things: 1) a brief (1 to 2 page) outline of the main points and issues discussed in the readings for the week; and 2) 3 short-answer questions to be given to their classmates during the first fifteen minutes of class.  If you are co-leading a discussion, still prepare three questions and we'll decide which ones to use.   Each of the questions will be worth 1 point and over the course of the semester students will be able to earn 30 points on these short quizzes.  Because we will be having these weekly quizzes, there will be no final exam for this class. Third, all students are expected to keep up to date with assigned readings and to participate in class discussions. Your weekly discussion participation is worth 10 points. Fourth,  for their research papers, students may earn 10 points for their paper outlines and bibliographies (due on February 15), and 30 points for their final paper (due on April 26).  I have included a list of possible topics.
 
    Weekly Class Meetings
         Discussion Leader               10 pts
         Weekly Quizzes                  30 pts
         Weekly Participation           10 pts
          Internet Assignment            10 pts
     Research Paper
          Paper Outline/Bibliography 10 pts
          Final Research Paper          30 pts

                                                  100 pts
 

Potential Paper Topics
 
1. Governor Pataki of New York has proposed expanding his state's DNA data base to include all convicted felons, joining about five other states that have such a policy.  Presently, the database is restricted to convicted sex offenders.  Other persons have proposed DNA testing and databasing of all newborns.  Discuss the law enforcement, public policy, and Constitutional implications of such proposals.

2. Discuss the problems relating to the availability of, and access to, various types of scientific expertise from the standpoint of plaintiffs (prosecutors) and defendants in legal cases.  There are those who believe that defense discovery of forensic laboratory reports generated by law enforcement laboratories is more than adequate.   Should indigent defendants be entitled to the funds needed to hire investigators and scientists  in order to review and/or challenge the prosecution's scientific evidence?
 
3. Discuss the changing standard utilized by the courts today (from Frye to Daubert) in determining the admissibility of scientific techniques. Do courts/judges have the capability of reviewing new (as well as existing) techniques using the standards articulated in Daubert?  Jurists and forensic examiners are also debating whether the Daubert standards apply only to scientifically-based expert testimony, or if it also applies to experts who do not purport to be scientists.  What is your position on this question?

4.  A committee for the Judicial Conference of the United States is recommending that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence be amended to reflect the Daubert decision.  Expert testimony would only be admissibility where "1) the testimony is sufficiently based upon reliable facts or data, 2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and 3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."  What are the implications of such a rule change and do you believe it serves the interests of science and justice?

5. What is the accuracy and reliability of scientific results and opinions offered by various forensic specialists in courts of law? Should the reliability of a method go to its admissibility in court, or should it be used in assessing the weight to be given to it by the fact-finder (judge or jury)?  Are proficiency test results a good approximation for "error rate"?  Should laboratories be mandated to engage in such testing and to publish their results?
 

6. There is controversy in the courts today with respect to the admissibility of pattern evidence laboratory results and corresponding expert testimony (handwriting, toolmarks, hair comparisons, etc.)  Some claim that such procedures are not truly scientific and should be excluded from the courts.  Review relevant legal decisions concerning these techniques and outline a research proposal for addressing and resolving these concerns.
 

7. What are the effects of scientific evidence on the investigation and adjudication of routine criminal and civil cases?  Is there a danger that scientific results will overwhelm judges and lay jurors and short-circuit the judicial fact-finding process?  If you were engaged in research in this area, what are various measures you might employ to assess these effects?  Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
 

8. Discuss the ethical dilemmas facing modern day forensic scientists functioning within the criminal justice system and identify the most serious ones.  Does the placement of forensic laboratoaries within law enforcement agencies compromise their objectivity?  What steps might the forensic science and legal professions take to alleviate such threats?  In this regard, discuss the ethical codes of various professional associations and their effectiveness.
  

The topics listed above are merely suggestions.  However, if you wish to do research on another topic, you need to get the approval of Prof. Peterson.

Week    Date     Section*               Subject/Authors                                                                Student(s)
 

   1          1/11                                  Overview of class/video
 

   2          1/18     NO CLASS          Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
 

   3          1/25     Handout                 Science/Tech Judicial Decision Making
                                I                        Science and Law
 
   4           2/1          II                        Contemporary Issues in Forensic Science
                              III                        Is There a "Crisis in Crime Labs"?
 
   5           2/8         IV                        Trouble in the FBI Crime Laboratory
 

   6           2/15       NO CLASS         AAFS Annual Meeting
 

   7           2/22       V                          Assessing the Quality of Forensic Science Services
 

   8            3/1       VI                          Question of Professional Ethics and Fairness
 

   9            3/8      VII                          Empirical Studies of Experts and the Impact
                                                                of Forensic Evidence
 
                3/15      NO CLASS           Spring Break
 

  10          3/22     VIII                         Admissibility of Scientific Evidence
 

  11          3/29      IX                          Defense Access to Expertise/Criminal Discovery
 

  12           4/6       X                           Bias and the Forensic Scientist's Search for Truth
 

  13          4/12     XI                          Standards in Forensic Science
 

  14          4/19     XII                         Pattern Evidence and Its Interpretation
 

  15          4/26    XIII                         Student Paper Presentations
 
 

* Except for Week 3, refers to chapter within Course Readings Packet. Week 3 reading is from Carnegie Commission's Science & Technology in Judicial Decision-Making.