"We the jury find John Smith guilty of such crime and sentence him to these many years in prison." That is definitely a line no one wants to have be read to them; especially if they are not responsible for the charges they are being accused of. As part of an inherited nature, human beings typically feel as targets of injustice or even offended when they are wronged. It occurs in the most trivial affairs in life; person A claims something about person B that happens to be a lie. Person B, most likely, will not appreciate the fabrication. A situation like this could go, for the sake of simplification, two ways. The made up story could be one of innocent nature and, perhaps after a brief disagreement, the parties involved would find a way to move on. A second scenario, however, might not present such a pleasant outcome. What if someone was accused of something they didn't do, but pertaining to a matter of importance; something that could end up ruining their reputation? What if it was a legal matter and they ended up "on the system" for it, having to answer for something  --  a crime  --  they had no part on? What if that erroneous accusation was of something as serious and heinous as rape, or murder? And what if they received punishment for it? Would they then be able to move past it? Would you? 

What could an individual under those circumstances do? What, or who, could they resort to? To answer that question, a better understanding regarding the system we have in place today and how it works is needed. To put it in the simplest way possible, there are many types of misconducts a person can be charged with; two of the most common ones being criminal and civil cases. For the present purpose, the cases that are going to be focused on are the ones of a criminal nature. Those are dealt with very differently than are civil cases (United States Courts). The prosecution, being represented by the U.S. Attorney, presents the case before a grand jury, which has to come up with a final decision in form of a verdict (United States Courts). A key element in criminal trials is the presentation of evidence. In the United States, that practice is guided by rules modeled after the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rennison 220). 

While the premise of the Federal Rules of Evidence and its purpose is promising, "administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination," (Rennison) when it comes to actually applying it from paper to real situations, it turns out it is not exactly as pretty as it builds itself to be. Much like a certain type of economic system, which in theory looks like something to aim for, an idealized concept that would have any individual wish to be a part of, when in reality it is quite the opposite. 

Evidence that is to be admitted in court can be of many sources and kinds. Witness testimony is evidence; statistics are also evidence. The most important type for the present purpose, however, is physical evidence. To be more specific, scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is nothing more than a type that is produced according to scientific tests or studies (Gale Encyclopedia). Also known as forensic evidence, this type is perhaps the most peculiar one, as there still hasn't been a consensus when it comes to its validity. Many out there even claim it is not scientific at all. Two west coast professors; Saks from Arizona State University and Faigman from the University of California are active in advocating forensics does not confirm to real science (Engdahl).

People tend to have the wrong idea about how forensics and everything it deals with works. There's a tendency to associate it with its own "world" and to give it a certain sense of glamour. The reason for that can partially be credited to the media. Crime drama is one of the most popular TV genres in the United States. Shows such as CSI, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, NCIS, just to name a few, reach the highest numbers when it comes to ratings. It is not only television; books and movies also tend to depict the proceedings of the criminal system in a way that may give layman the wrong idea about how the reality actually works. That does not apply exclusively to this particular case as the media in general shows things differently from what they actually are in order to foster an audience. In this particular case, though, it gives us the wrong idea of the criminal system, which might make us believe the actual system works in a way, when it actually is much different. Some call that the CSI effect. These shows make us think that the forensic field is infallible and widely acceptable. The truth is, that is not the case. Evidence that of a forensic nature faces real challenges, especially when it comes to its admissibility in court.

A study carried out by Peterson shows forensic evidence does affect court decisions, but that there's not a much needed uniformization when it comes to evidence type and offense. The conclusion they came to was as follows, "in spite of the increased attention paid to forensic evidence over the past decade, there is little published empirical data identifying the types of evidence routinely collected, and the extent to which this evidence is submitted to and examined in forensic crime laboratories. There is even less research that describes the role and impact of such evidence on criminal justice outcomes" (Peterson). 

Not too long ago, I was a part of that group myself. The group that thought that everything was beautiful and worked perfectly in the "world" of the application of forensic science to courts, and there was simply nothing the professionals in that field had to worry about. I didn't know much about the justice system, and I thought, as long as it was available for use, every case made use of forensic evidence. The difficulties faced by this field first came to my attention during a talk with a Criminal Justice professor. While talking about the subject, he pointed out that many in Law did not believe Forensics to be an actual science. My first reaction was to be shocked, you would think those fields would go hand in hand like Science and Technology, but I found out that couldn't be further from the truth. The number of articles I stumbled upon while researching for this paper of people criticizing the use of scientific evidence in courts and how sometimes it might actually make things worse amazed me.

Even with all the negative critiques, forensic evidence is the most reliable kind as it is the only one that can actually link a person to a crime scene (Houck). As long as the procedures and techniques are followed correctly and following a standard operational procedure, done in actual crime labs, repeated to avoid errors, they are the best source to assure someone was actually present in a place where a crime took place. Or, it could go the other way around and prove that a certain person was not there. That is way more reliable than, for example, witness's testimonies. There are many factors that can make a testimony faulty. First, the person can simply not remember exactly what it was that took place. Second, especially if the person was the victim, it becomes hard for them to have actual recollections, if they survive and were not actual murder victims, they can end up so traumatized that they might claim their assailer was a tall dark-haired and blue eyed male when it actually was a short, blonde, hazel eyes man. And there is also the case someone might simply not tell the truth because they are either covering for someone or they themselves committed the crime and of course they are not going to incriminate themselves.

It gets even worse if on top of it all we have a corrupt system, which was the case with the Avery case, features in Netflix's hit documentary, Making a Murderer. In the first part of that case, which related to the rape of public figure Penny Beernsten, there was more than enough evidence to at the very least bring up questions about the case, make the people in the Sheriff's Department ask themselves if they were actual signs that somehow Avery was not responsible for the crime. But the exact opposite happened. In episode two of the Netflix series you see that there were conversations between those people and they talked in a way as if to cover up for what they had done. Even when the actual perpetrator of the crime came to play, his involvement in the crime was constantly disregarded, they wouldn't even look into it because they already had the right guy. Not to get off topic because the present objective is not to discuss the system's corruption, but had there been stronger laws in place about the use of every piece of evidence gathered in a case, the outcome could have been very different.

I am not saying people who don't believe in forensics are wrong. Of course, like everything in life, it has to go through screenings, tests, and all sorts of validation processed before they become accepted, you can't just take their word for it. But, all the tests done here are actual tests that existed before for other purposes. Chemical identification tests have existed for centuries, DNA is something more recent, but still not something they just discovered yesterday and are just not trying to implement. The thing is, these experiments all existed before and were accepted, the only difference now is that we are trying to apply them to the criminal system. And because there is so much more going on in there, some might think that would pose a threat to some sort of interest they might have. Unfortunately, we know the system is not actually only about bringing justice, at least that's not what it feels like sometimes. For example, would someone disregard a paternity test and claim there was some hidden agenda behind it and the person who came with a positive result was trying to influence someone somehow? Probably not. Maybe if you were the person who just found out you are a father and have to pay alimony now. But that is not the point.

The point is that forensics was not invented to harm anyone and send them to prison because "we feel like it," on the contrary, with it we take science and its applications and use it with the single objective of bringing justice. If someone claims they were not in a certain place but it turns out they are linked to scene in any way, the evidence, which is scientific is much more believable than the person claiming that they weren't there, that they didn't do it. That is not to say that scientific evidence is infallible but say someone insists they have an alibi, that they were not in a certain place at a certain time. Could that be considered harder evidence than, say, actual physical proof that the person was indeed in the crime scene, like fingerprints, DNA, fluids? Some works I came across while researching for this paper was along the lines of forensic evidence and wrongful convictions. I thought they were going to claim it was needed to prevent those wrongful convictions, but they were actually against it and claimed people had been wrongfully convicted because of the forensics, claiming the validity couldn't be determined. 

It should be the other way around. Forensics should not be under attack, it should not be the target of questioning, on the other hand, they should be doing studies around it, trying to further some sort of deal, something that would make it universal in all courts and cases. Starting with educating the general population around it. You can't just expect the people to watch CSI and know what they are dealing with. That is probably why there are so many articles out there criticizing it. Saying this is leading to wrongful convictions. There are so many cases in which someone was sent to jail for something they didn't commit. And in most of those cases the reason for that was because some sort of forensic evidence was not admissible at the time of the original trial, because it is just that evidence that ends up exonerating the person years later. By then people could have lost decades of their lives, as was the case of Steven Avery. And many others.

Forensic Files, a show that retells of actual cases in US history has plenty of those cases. In one of them, give example. All because of forensic evidence. None of these had their course dramatically changed because a witness came out of nowhere and claimed the person did or didn't do it. Shouldn't that prompt people to do something about it? At least to develop an interest in doing something about the admissibility of this kind of evidence. I think it at least deserves some attention and consideration. I am not naive enough not to understand that there is a lot behind this, things like political interests, unfortunately. But that is exactly the point. It is called the justice system after all. It should be about bringing justice, and not about deals made because this way representative A will get what he was promised by representative B. Justice either being bringing a criminal what they deserve. I don't care if they are a famous artist, political figure, a poor person or just your everyday fellowman, if they committed a crime they have to answer to it in the most fitting way possible. The same way, someone who did not commit a crime should not be sentence with it, it also doesn't matter where they come from.

I wish there was something that made the use of evidence in courts mandatory. If a case involved any kind of evidence (of course, not evidence that was tampered with, but actual, legitimate evidence) it had to be presented. A lot of times that is not the case. I think it would avoid a good percentage of wrong convictions. It might not completely resolve the problem, at this point in the world what does? Is there actually a one solution for everything that is going to magically make everything better? Doubtful. But it would at least be a step further towards that.

Is this really not something to fight about? Just because it's not with you? Doesn't it bother you that your fellow citizen might be put in such a situation? I know it bother me, a lot. Maybe more than it actually should. But what if it were you? What if it were a loved one? That is basically what happened in the Avery case. One day he was home minding his own business when the police came in and simply took him. At he sits in prison to this day. What's not to say that tomorrow that couldn't be you? Is this really something we shouldn't care about? What about the other way around? The fact that an innocent person sits in prison for something they didn't do means the actual perpetrator is free to do it again as many times as they want.

Something should be done about this, or there are going to be a lot of other Steven Averys out there. There probably already are but we've never heard of them. Could this actual injustice not turn them into actual crime committers? Far be it from me to say I endorse and praise people becoming criminals for the way they are treated, that's entering a whole other social matter, but don't you think people would be so mad they end up disregarding everything? If they were imprisoned for something they didn't do and spent so much time in jail for that, what's to say it couldn't happen again? What's to say someone won't come to your door and take you into custody for a whole other crime? Steven Avery anyone? That's exactly what even the title of the documentary suggests "making" a murderer. 

If J.D.s curriculums have to be reimagined, so be it. You got into this field, you should be ready to deal with everything that's going to be expected of you. If they are heading into this field of work, they should at least have some basic knowledge com what is going to be presented to them. Same goes to the jurors. After the process of selection, there should be some sort of training the the matter. That's the least we could expect to get something as fair as possible. I know it's not possible to give courses on the matter, but at least to educate them, even if it's one afternoon. They're not going for a mater's degree in the subject.

What I mentioned before about the Federal Rules of Evidence having this idealized side to it comes from the fact that, as always, there are exceptions to it, and those are exactly the places where these gaps can occur and an innocent person gets wronged because the "fairness" part of it wasn't played. As mentioned before, the rules determine what evidence may be admitted, for what uses, and under what conditions. This admissibility is controlled by a set of rules that govern security of the evidence, authenticity, and relevance (Houck). In a criminal trial, the government must provide evidence to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt. The defendant must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," which means the evidence must be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime (United States Courts). 

The Rules, however, do not generally apply in grand jury proceedings (Federal Rules of Law). But a grand jury is exactly the kind of jury of choice for these types of trials. The jury might press for the presentation of evidence or testimony, but only if they find it appropriate (Federal Rules of Law).  Now, how is the jury supposed to be responsible for such an important task? How can they judge if the production of one of those is important or not? This is not saying the jury is ignorant by all means, but it is natural people would be confused under such circumstances. Especially in these types of trials. If I were a jury in a murder case, I wouldn't know what type of evidence to bring to court and which would be irrelevant. It shouldn't be the jury's choice. There is also another angle to consider, and this might be the most dangerous one because it is the one in which there's a greater possibility for a source of corruption. The Federal Rules say: " ( ... ) the rules governing privileges generally do apply at grand jury proceedings, and thus grand-jury witnesses may refuse to disclose information on the grounds that it is protected by attorney-client privilege," unfortunately, the ethical matter matter gets more important here. The same way a doctor can't disclose of information on their patients, even though in some cases that might actually bring some benefit to the patient, there's also the confidentially matter in legal issues. At some extent, doesn't it feel like this beats the purpose that, "the rules are designed to secure fairness, to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and to promote the growth and development of the law of evidence so that truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly resolved" (Federal Rules of Evidence). Does client-attorney privilege ultimately beat having a fair system and preventing those privileges from bringing evidence into court that could exonerate someone? Or the other way around, not bringing something that could make a difference between decades in prison for someone and their freedom?

The U.S. court system still counts with what is knows as double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense. That could be either good or bad both ways. If you are found guilty of something but are innocent, it is bad not to have the chance of being tried again. It also can happen in another direction, a person who might have committed a heinous crime ends up being found not guilty and they can't be tried again for it.

It feels like such a pressing matter needs to be reiterated. Can you imagine being charged with a crime you didn't commit? Not only being charged but actually having to sit in trial and watch your rights being taken away from you right before your eyes? Can you imagine actually being convicted with that crime, receiving a sanction of maybe decades behind bars and sit helplessly knowing there's nothing you can do about it. Even worse, can you imagine yourself in this situation knowing there's one (maybe even more) piece of evidence that could make that all go away. There's a bloody shirt, a footprint, hairs, anything that can make you be exonerated of all guilt beyond a doubt, but because the system won't allow for that evidence to be brought to court, you have to accept the fact that you are going to spend decades in prison? That is just unacceptable. Perhaps what society really needs is a reform on the criminal justice system.

