Forensic Science

Chapter 1: Introduction, Overview and Background

Keith Aufderheide, Ph.D.

Oglethorpe University

4484 Peachtree Road, NE

Atlanta, GA 30319

© 2004

All Rights Reserved

I. Law Background and Crime

At first glance it seems easy to define “crime” and “criminal”. Crimes are acts which pose a threat to society, and criminals are individuals who perpetrate these acts. These concepts are attempts at absolute definitions, but the truth is that crime is relative.

For example, in 1932 if Jack and Jill were walking down a street in New York City, and if Jack was carrying a pint of whiskey in his back pocket and Jill was carrying some gold coins in her pocket, Jack would have been violation of the 18^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

18^th AMENDMENT (1919)

SECTION 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

However, Jill would have been carrying the currency of the land and would have been in no legal peril.

A scant two years later, Jack’s behavior would have been legal, as the 21^st amendment of 1933 repealed the 18^th. However, in 1933, during the height of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order forcing Americans to turn in their gold coins in exchange for paper money; the coins were melted down to form gold bars, which were then used to pay the national debt. From 1933 until 1971 it was illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold, including gold coins. Hence, Jill would have been the criminal.

In a society, the concept of crime does not emerge full-grown. It develops out of experience and history, and is conditioned by social and cultural attitudes. To understand crime, it is necessary to look at the historical background of the prohibited conduct.

Before the American Revolution, the Colonies were subject to the law handed down by English judges. Thus, English common law, with its Anglo-Saxon roots, became the basis of criminal law in the Colonies. English common law descended from medieval times. Courts used a traditional body of unwritten legal precedents which had been created for everyday rulings and practices, especially as regards property rights. The popularity of common law is explained by its consistency– rulings were supposed to be the same in all similar circumstances.

Even well before the Revolution, however, the Colonies had certain rights and abilities to enact new laws. These are known as statutory laws. All new laws enacted by legislative bodies today are statutory laws.

Statutory and common laws are two ways of subdividing all laws. There are also other methods of subdivision, such as crimes and torts, which we will discuss later.

The reason that the law is ever-changing is that codes of conduct are fluid, changing with societal, religious and cultural norms and practices. For example, until fairly recent times, American law was an attempt to integrate religious (and especially Christian) beliefs into the criminal code. In fact, in Colonial America most crimes were also considered to be “offenses against the Divine”. One interesting example of this concerns sodomy laws, particularly in the State of Georgia.

When the Colony of Georgia was chartered in 1732, it was carved from a region that we still know as South Carolina. Georgians were permitted to make their own laws, subject only to the requirement that new laws not conflict with English law. However, Georgia did not have to adopt South Carolina’s laws. In fact, South Carolina had a sodomy law which Georgia chose not to accept. Nonetheless, in 1734 an unnamed man received 300 lashes for sodomy, and in 1743 an Irish surgeon was put to death for committing sodomy at Fort Frederica. English common law was used to justify the second of these; no official justification was used for the first. These prosecutions are seen today as aberrations not consistent with usual and customary practices in the Colony at the time.

After the Revolution, Georgia enacted a law in 1784 that adopted all laws that existed in Georgia as of May 14, 1776, as well as the common laws of England, and such of the statute laws as were usually in force in the said province. This wording made it clear that only the laws already recognized by Georgia in 1776 were to be continued. Since sodomy never had been a crime in the state, sodomy would remain legal until the legislature acted. At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, Georgia was the only one of the 13 original Colonies to have neither any common law nor any statutory law forbidding sodomy.

In 1817, Georgia enacted its first sodomy law. It did not define sodomy, but offered a compulsory life sentence with labor. In 1833 Georgia (rather uniquely) defined sodomy as

“carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman.”

Thus, male homosexual acts were forbidden, as were similar “unnatural” acts between men and women. The wording suggests that it is anal intercourse which is being banned, as this is the only unnatural act which a man can perform on both a man and a woman, alike. Thus, it is believed that neither fellatio nor cunnilingus was being regulated, nor were any lesbian acts, the concept of which had perhaps not occurred to the legislators. The penalty remained the same as before.

As the nineteenth century concluded, the Victorian Age caused an increase in Judeo-Christian morality in American society, and laws and attitudes changed to accommodate this shift in values. In 1894 was the first prosecution of a sodomy case since Georgia achieved statehood. The case, Hodges v. State, resulted in the conviction (later overturned) of a boy (less than 14 years of age) performing sodomy on another such child.

In Herring v. State (1904), the Georgia Supreme Court judicially and unilaterally broadened the sodomy laws to include fellatio, stating that, “after much reflection”, if the

“baser form of the abominable and disgusting crime against nature– i.e., by the mouth– had prevailed in the days of the early common law, the courts of England could well have held that that form of the offense was included in the current definition of the crime of sodomy. And no satisfactory reason occurs to us why the lesser form of this crime against nature should be covered by our statute, and the greater excluded, when both are committed in a like unnatural manner, and when either might well be spoken of and understood as being ‘the abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians.’ ”

In Comer v. State (1917), the Georgia Court of Appeals again did their own legislating, ruling that the act of a man performing cunnilingus on a woman was also subject to the sodomy laws, although such an act was not covered by the 1833 definition; recall that the 1833 statute forbade “carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman.” Since men cannot perform cunnilingus upon one another, the statute seems not to forbid such an act between a man and a woman. Nonetheless, the majority opinion was that such an act was implicitly covered. However, that opinion was overturned on the aforementioned grounds in 1963.

In a 1939 case, Thompson v. Aldredge, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that cunnilingus between two women did not violate the 1833 statute.

1949 saw the first modification of Georgia’s sodomy laws in more than a century. The law still did not address lesbian acts, but decreased the penalty from life at labor to 1-to-10 years.

1968 saw the first comprehensive criminal code revision in Georgia’s history. The sodomy statute is as follows:

                        16-6-2. Sodomy; aggravated sodomy.

                        (a)       A person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he commits sodomy with force and against the will of the other person.

                        (b)       A person convicted of the offense of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. A person convicted of the offense of aggravated sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.

Note that the penalty for sodomy was increased from 1-to-10 years to 1-to-20, and the definition was broadened to include cunnilingus, both between man and woman and between two women, as well as fellatio. Further, solicitation of sodomy was made a misdemeanor. These alterations are seen today as a backlash against the first stirrings of the “gay rights” movements in the mid-to-late 1960’s.

The most famous sodomy case of the 20th century, Bowers v. Hardwick, originated in Georgia in 1986. An Atlanta man, Michael Bowers, was accused of performing consensual fellatio on another man in his apartment; Bowers’ roommate had admitted a police officer, who was a witness to the event. Bowers was convicted at trial, but that conviction was overturned by the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, reinstated the original conviction. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger said that laws against “homosexual conduct” had been around for a long time and they were

“firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law.”

            For the Court to

“... hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

“This is essentially not a question of personal ‘preferences’ but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.”

In Powell v. State (1998), the Georgia Supreme Court reversed part of the sodomy law, saying that one’s right to privacy in one’s own bedroom superceded the State’s interest in prohibiting certain acts. Thus, apparently laws against consensual and private acts of sodomy in the state are currently unenforceable. However, public acts are still covered, as are solicitations and aggravating circumstances. The legislature has been disinclined to rewrite the laws to reflect the changes brought about by the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision.

The lesson here is fairly clear and relatively typical. Laws are fluid and relative, not timeless and absolute. We have a history of fairly moralistic, Judeo-Christian laws in this country. In fact, a typical dictionary entry for “crime” will usually give several definitions, including “an act committed in violation of a law prohibiting it, or omitted in violation of a law ordering it”, and “an offense against morality; sin”. These two aspects of crime– violation of a code and an offense against morality– often go hand-in-glove in our society.

In recent decades, however, there has been a tendency to unlink our laws from the Judeo-Christian heritage which has figured so prominently in our history. This is known as the secularization of law. Thus, we now tend to define crimes as offenses against the State, rather than offenses against the Divine. Nevertheless, it is clear that the religious and moralistic values of legislators and judges still figure prominently in their decisions.

It would be tempting, but incorrect, to say that even secularized law seeks to control social deviants (as opposed to moral deviants). There are a few behaviors which are viewed as deviant in almost every culture; homicide and rape are two such. However, there are many regulated behaviors which are not necessarily deviant (drug use and sodomy come to mind), and certainly many deviant behaviors which are not regulated (such as two men holding hands or cross-dressing). Thus, even in an increasingly secularized society, it is sometimes difficult to explain the origin (or absence) of appropriate statutes. Surely laws are complex compromises based on issues of history, morality, religion, deviance, politics and whimsy.

Just as we may divide law into the two branches, common and statutory, it is also possible to partition laws as to whether they address crimes or torts.

A crime is a wrong in violation of the peace and dignity of the State; in short, conduct that is against the interests of the entire society. In theory, it is committed against the interests of all the people of the State, and against which the State may react by levying punishment. Thus, in a criminal case the prosecution will be the People of the State of Georgia, for example. In theory, criminal laws must be specific, defining explicitly the offense. Also, the law must be uniformly applied, so that all the persons of the State are subject to the same laws. Finally, the law must specify precisely what punishments are provided for. You may wish to review the Georgia Sodomy Code (16-6-2) cited previously, wherein you will find all the aforementioned elements represented.

Criminal law can be further subdivided into substantive and procedural subdisciplines. Substantive criminal law is the specification of what action (or inaction) constitutes a crime, and it attaches penalties for violations of the statute. Procedural criminal law provides the rules whereby we investigate, try and punish criminals.

In contrast to crimes, torts are crimes against the interests of individuals, not the State. This branch of law is civil law. Note that a crime is a social wrong, whereas a tort is a private wrong.

Clearly, any one action may be both a crime and a tort. The most notorious recent example is perhaps the O. J. Simpson case, where the defendant was found not guilty of the crimes he was charged with, but was still found liable in the subsequent civil case.

We will be largely concerned with crimes rather than torts. However, one should remember that any behavior may qualify as both, and that sometimes a forensic scientist is, in fact, concerned with torts and not crimes (as in issues of paternity or tire failure, for example). But we will generally adopt the more prevalent stance that it is a crime which is of interest.

Once a crime has seemingly been committed, the criminal justice system takes over. To call this agglomeration a system at all is to be unnecessarily flattering. In fact, the “system” is a morass of federal, state and local agencies and departments, all operating more-or-less independently of one another. The criminal justice system consists of three basic parts: Law Enforcement, Judiciary and Corrections. Law enforcement is a part of the executive branch of government, and there are law enforcement agencies at the federal level (e.g.: FBI, DEA, ATF), the state level (e.g.: GBI, GSP) and the local level (e.g.: Atlanta Police, Fulton County Sheriff). Who is responsible in any given case depends upon which statutes (federal, state, local) have been broken and perhaps as well on the location of the purported criminal act. Corrections, also, is a part of the executive branch and there are prisons and jails at the federal, state and local levels. Of course, the judiciary is a separate branch of government. The judiciary includes all courts, and there are federal, state and local courts.

At the federal level, there has been considerable reorganization since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of the various executive components are organized within the U.S. Department of Justice. This extensive organization contains several investigative and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and the U.S. Central National Bureau of Interpol; DOJ also houses the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Parole Commission, as well as many other components. The Treasury Department has been stripped of several of its most prestigious law enforcement and investigative agencies, but still retains the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, now houses the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, which has replaced the INS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard.

The U.S. judiciary is a separate branch of government, consisting of 94 federal judicial districts, 12 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Each of the judicial districts has a U.S. Attorney (and a number of deputies and assistants); the U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the president. Further, the U.S. Attorneys are overseen by the Attorney General, who is a presidential appointee and who heads the Department of Justice. It is an interesting example of the checks-and-balances afforded by the Constitution that U.S. Attorneys are appointed and controlled by the Executive Branch, but serve in the Judicial Branch.

In Georgia, the state constitution provides for a variety of courts. Magistrate Courts deal with civil claims of $15,000 or less, a few minor criminal offenses, county ordinance violations, bad checks, preliminary hearings, and the issuance of arrest warrants. The Juvenile Courts have authority over most children under the age of 17 (and in some cases, 18). Probate Courts probate (or certify) wills, handle guardianship of minors, administer estates, and take up matters of involuntary hospitalization. State Courts have jurisdiction in all misdemeanor cases (including traffic cases), and all civil cases (regardless of the amount of money claimed), unless the state constitution gives specific authority to the Superior Court.

The state constitution gives jurisdiction to the Superior Courts for all felony matters, as well as instances of divorce and issues of land title, as well as various other matters of less concern to us. The state is divided into 49 judicial circuits, and there is one Superior Court and one DA (and a number of deputies and assistants) per circuit.

The Department of Law, which is in the executive branch, consists of the Attorney General (who is elected), and all Special Prosecutors and Assistant and Deputy AG’s. The Department of Public Safety (which has oversight of the GSP) and the GBI are both directly under the governor’s control, as is the Department of Corrections.

Clearly, there may also be a wide variety of law enforcement and corrections facilities at the local level.

Part of the reason we have such an amalgamation of agencies, departments and bureaus is our nation’s historical distrust of a strong centralized authority. Hence we have no national police, for example. In addition, it is up to the states to regulate even such widely reviled deviances as murder and rape.

II. The Development of Forensic Science

The word “forensic” derives from the Latin word for “forum”, meaning public. It has taken on a meaning associated with courts of law, which are public. Thus, in our culture “forensic” really means “pertaining to the judiciary”. Thus, forensic science is the application of the areas of science (and particularly natural science) to both criminal and civil law.

The use of science in enforcing torts is relatively antique. In ancient Babylon, fingerprints in clay tablets were used as a way of signing contracts; in 8^th century China, thumbprints and fingerprints were employed similarly. At least as early as the 14^th century, a Persian doctor observed that no two fingerprints on contracts seemed to be the same.

As regards criminal activity, in 1248, a book, Hsi DuanYu (the Washing Away of Wrongs) published by in China, described how to distinguish drowning from strangulation. It was the first recorded application of medical knowledge to the solution of crime. In 1609, the first treatise on systematic document examination was published in France. Then in 1784, one of the first documented uses of physical matching saw an Englishman convicted of murder based on the torn edge of a wad of newspaper in a pistol that matched a piece remaining in his pocket.

However, with a few exceptions such as those mentioned above, Forensic Science as it applies to criminal and civil law was by-and-large born in the 19^th century, following the development of chemistry as a distinct science in the mid-to-late 18^th century.

One of the most famous early applications involved arsenic poisoning. Arsenic(III) oxide, As₂O₃ , was first produced commercially in the 8^th century as a result of refining ore in iron and lead mining. It became the poison of choice for many over the succeeding centuries. When laypeople speak of “arsenic”, they are almost always referring to this particular oxide and not the element, As. The oxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless. Its symptoms mimic natural diseases; acute arsenic poisoning resembles gastroenteritis (which is the inflammation of the mucous membrane of the stomach and intestines), while chronic arsenic poisoning presents a combined picture of stomach upsets, peripheral neuritis (which is the inflammation of a nerve or group of nerves, characterized by pain, loss of reflexes, and atrophy of the affected muscles) and dermatitis (or inflammation of the skin). The chronic poisoning is much more common– the poisoner gives the victim sublethal doses over a long period of time. The victim will then die after a period ranging from a few months to several years. Besides being colorless, tasteless and odorless, arsenic proved ideal for a long while because its presence in tissues was undetectable. Arsenic poisoning became so popular it was referred to as poudre de succession, or “inheritance powder”.

In 1836 all this changed. In that year, English chemist James Marsh developed a test for the presence of arsenic in tissues. The oxide is changed into arsenious acid, H₃AsO₃ , by stomach acids, and the acid is absorbed into the tissues. Subsequent treatment of the tissues with Zn liberates arsine gas, H₃As. The gas is allowed to pass near a glass disk (or petri dish), where application of a flame causes the arsine to decompose into its elements. The metallic As is deposited as a gray-black film on the glass. The Marsh test (as it became known) is fairly sensitive, being able to detect as little as 0.02 mg As.

In December, 1839, Charles Lafarge, a minor French industrialist, was on a business trip in Paris, several hundred miles away from his home in Le Glandier. He became ill after eating a cake sent to him by his wife. Mrs. Lafarge was a young widow who had married Lafarge through an arrangement by a marriage broker following the death of her first husband. The marriage was an unhappy one. Lafarge returned home, his condition deteriorated, and he died on January 13, 1840. Arsenious acid was found in his stomach, and it became known that his wife, Marie, had bought arsenic as rat-poison from a drug store as far back as mid-December, 1839. She was arrested and sent for trial. The application of new scientific methods proved futile at first. When the Marsh Test was applied to corroborate earlier findings of arsenic by traditional methods, the results proved negative. The defense was elated, but the elation was short-lived, as the experts declared that the test worked better on organs other than the stomach. Exhumation of Lafarge’s body was carried out for the purpose of retrieving these other organs for testing.

Now, Matthieu Joseph Bonaventure Orfila (1787-1853) was a Spaniard by birth, but moved to France in 1807. Eventually, he became Dean of the Paris medical faculty. He became the father of toxicology, and was probably the first expert to provide convincing scientific evidence in a criminal trial. Dr. Orfila was summoned by the court. He applied the Marsh test correctly and found arsenic in Lafarge’s body. He also testified that both his lab-ware and the cemetery earth were arsenic-free. This case stirred up so much controversy in France that the entire country was divided into pro-Marie and anti-Marie factions. The case ended up in Marie being delivered the sentence of life imprisonment. She served 10 years and was released by Napoleon III in 1850. She died the following year still declaring her innocence.

In 1842, at about this same time, Edgar Allan Poe published The Murders in the Rue Morgue, the first fictional detective story. In a way, the whole of the 19^th century is an interesting interplay between the development of genuine Forensic Science and the development of the fictional detective, or criminalist. In some ways, the relationship was symbiotic– the popularity of the fictional detective probably caused more intensive forensic research, the success of which, in turn, perhaps caused the subject to become ever more popular in fiction.

The 19^th century saw great strides in developing evidence that would uniquely identify (or individualize) a criminal. The first such system was known as anthropometry, or bertillonage.

Bertillonage was the brainchild of Alphonse Bertillon (1853-1914), who started with the Paris police department in 1879 as a clerk. He had absorbed some scientific knowledge from his father, an anthropologist who had labored to prove that each human being had unique variations in physical characteristics. Young Bertillon quickly saw that his father’s academic obsession might have practical value in police work, where detectives had trouble seeing past the disguises and aliases affected by criminals.

Bertillon began using his father’s measuring techniques on arrestees and convicts, fastidiously recording the data on cards. He developed a filing system that put a person in one of three main categories based upon head size. He then subdivided them further according to the dimensions of the left middle finger, and so on down the line, using 11 different bodily measurements.

Bertillon had calculated that the probability of two people having precisely the same 11 measurements was one in four million. A criminal might wear a fake beard or give a phony name, but Bertillon noted that “subjects cannot exercise the slightest influence on their cranium diameters.” His police superiors thought he was a bit crazy until they used his data successfully to identify nearly 800 suspects in three years. In French courts, where suspects were guilty until proven otherwise, proof of a past criminal record was a powerful tool for winning convictions, and Bertillon’s star rose. In 1892 he was appointed director of the newly formed Bureau of Identification of the Paris police.

Before long police departments around the world were using bertillonage. Since it was cumbersome for detectives to stop suspects in the street and take their measurements, Bertillon developed a scaled-down, pocket-card version of his system. European police officials at the Rome Anti-Anarchist Congress of 1898 adopted Le Pocket Parle as the official method for rooting out revolutionaries. “Once again the genius of M. Bertillon has triumphed,” Glasgow police chief William Douglas gushed in a 1901 article. “He has come forward with a system that approached very near perfection.”

What doomed the Bertillon system was unsettling proof of its fallibility. In 1903 a newly convicted prisoner named Will West arrived at Leavenworth Prison, and was escorted by guards to the office. There they measured his height and the expanse of his arms and wrapped a pair of steel calipers around his head. After that they noted the length of his right ear, left foot, left forearm and selected fingers. They examined the size and shape of his nose, measured the tilt of his forehead and examined his skin for scars and blemishes. All were dutifully recorded on an index card, establishing Will West’s identity under the Bertillon system.

As West’s Bertillon measurements were taken at Leavenworth, one of the clerks had a nagging suspicion. Even though West’s paperwork indicated he was a new prisoner, the clerk was sure he had measured him before. Some time later the clerk checked through the prison files, and sure enough, found an intake file for a William West who possessed the same Bertillon measurements. But there was a problem: This William West, who had been incarcerated at Leavenworth two years before, was still a prisoner. They were two different men.

Befuddled, prison officials summoned both prisoners to the office and were astonished to discover that, although they were not related, they resembled one another as if they had been twins. Then Will West and William West were resubmitted to bertillonage, and their measurements were found to be virtually identical.

A few years later prison officials did find one distinguishing characteristic between the Wests: Their fingerprints were unmistakably different. By then, police departments and prisons across the United States and Europe had switched to the fingerprint identification system.

The English first began using fingerprints in July of 1858, when Sir William Herschel (1792 - 1871), Chief Magistrate of the Hooghly district in Jungipoor, India, first used fingerprints on native contracts. On a whim, and with no thought toward personal identification, Herschel had a local businessman impress his hand print on the back of a contract. The idea was merely “... to frighten [him] out of all thought of repudiating his signature.” The native was suitably impressed, and Herschel made a habit of requiring palm prints– and later, simply the prints of the right index and middle fingers– on every contract made with the locals. Personal contact with the document, they believed, made the contract more binding than if they simply signed it. Thus, the first wide-scale, modern-day use of fingerprints was predicated not upon scientific evidence, but upon superstitious beliefs.

As his fingerprint collection grew, however, Herschel began to note that the inked impressions could, indeed, prove or disprove identity. While his experience with fingerprinting was admittedly limited, Sir Herschel’s private conviction that all fingerprints were unique to the individual, as well as permanent throughout that individual’s life, inspired him to expand their use.

During the 1870’s, Dr. Henry Faulds, the British Surgeon-Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in Tokyo, Japan, took up the study of “skin-furrows” after noticing finger marks on specimens of “prehistoric” pottery. A learned and industrious man, Dr. Faulds not only recognized the importance of fingerprints as a means of individualization, but devised a method of classification as well.

In 1880, Faulds forwarded an explanation of his classification system and a sample of the forms he had designed for recording inked impressions, to Sir Charles Darwin. Darwin, in advanced age and ill health, informed Dr. Faulds that he could be of no assistance to him, but promised to pass the materials on to his cousin, Francis Galton. Also in 1880, Dr. Faulds published an article in the Scientific Journal, Nautre. He discussed fingerprints as a means of personal identification, and the use of printers ink as a method for obtaining such fingerprints. He was the first to explicitly recognize the value of latent prints left at crime scenes.

Again reflecting actual world events, Mark Twain’s 1883 book, Life on the Mississippi, sees a murderer identified by the use of fingerprints. In a later book by Twain, Pudd’n Head Wilson, there was a dramatic court trial relying on fingerprint identification. These fictional accounts no doubt piqued the public’s imagination.

Sir Francis Galton (1822 - 1911)– a British anthropologist, a cousin of Charles Darwin, and the lucky recipient of the information forwarded to Darwin by Henry Faulds– began his observations of fingerprints as a means of identification in the 1880’s. In 1892, he published his book, Fingerprints, establishing the individuality and permanence of fingerprints. The book included the first broadly accepted classification system for fingerprints.

Galton’s primary interest in fingerprints was as an aid in determining heredity and racial background. While he soon discovered that fingerprints offered no firm clues to an individual’s intelligence or genetic history, he was able to scientifically prove what Herschel and Faulds already suspected: that fingerprints do not change over the course of an individual’s lifetime, and that no two fingerprints are exactly the same. According to his calculations, the odds of two individual fingerprints being the same were 1 in 64 billion. Galton identified the characteristics by which fingerprints can be identified. These same characteristics (minutia) are basically still in use today, and are often referred to as Galton’s Details.

In 1891, Juan Vucetich, an Argentine Police Official, began the first fingerprint files based on Galton pattern types. At first, Vucetich included the Bertillon System with the files. In 1892, Vucetich made the first criminal fingerprint identification. He was able to identify a woman by the name of Rojas, who had murdered her two sons, and cut her own throat in an attempt to place blame on another. Her bloody print was left on a door post, proving her identity as the murderer.

Not only were fingerprints more reliable than bertillonage, but it was far easier to get a prisoner to roll his fingers across an ink pad than it was to squeeze his head between calipers. Bertillon, who had been an outspoken critic of fingerprinting, himself grudgingly acquiesced to forensic fashion and began collecting the right thumbprints of suspects. In fact, Bertillon became the first person in Europe to solve a crime using latent prints from a crime scene.

Today, of course, the once-famous Bertillon is virtually forgotten, and fingerprinting– despite the recent advent of DNA testing and other innovations– is still the most widely recognized method of individualization. It’s now estimated that the odds are 67 billion to one against any two different persons producing an identical print, and judges and juries throughout the world accept that two identical prints must come from the same person.

In 1888, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published A Study in Scarlet, the first novel in which appeared the famous fictional criminalist, Sherlock Holmes. Throughout the ensuing three novels and numerous short stories, Holmes became well-known for both his deductive prowess and his observational abilities. He was a master at what would today be called trace evidence analysis and crime reconstruction. Well before real-life criminalists recognized and accepted several newly-emerging techniques, Holmes had already solved cases by employing serology, fingerprints, firearm identification, etc. The public went wild over the Holmes stories, and there is no other character which holds such a prominent place in fictional forensics.

The early 20^th century saw the beginnings of great strides in medico-biological sciences. In 1901 Paul Uhlenhuth, a German immunologist, developed the precipitin test for differentiating species. He was also one of the first to institute standards, controls, and QA/QC procedures. (It might be noted that Sherlock Holmes had, in fiction, invented essentially the pricipitin test some years earlier.) In 1900 Karl Landsteiner first discovered that human blood divided into four groups– now recognized as A, B, AB and O– and was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1930. Max Richter adapted the technique to type blood stains. This is one of the first instances of performing validation experiments specifically to adapt a method for forensic science. Landsteiner’s continued work on the detection of blood, its species, and its type formed the basis of practically all subsequent work. Leone Lattes, professor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Turin Italy, developed the first antibody test for ABO blood groups. He first used the test in casework to resolve a marital dispute. He published the first book dealing not only with clinical issues, but inheritability, paternity, and typing of dried blood stains. Even now, the 1915 Lattes test for typing dried blood stains is often used.

Dr. Edmond Locard (1877 - 1966) was perhaps the most famous of the students taught by Bertillon. Locard’s work formed the basis for what is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the forensic sciences, the Locard Exchange Principle.

In 1910, Locard persuaded police in Lyons, France, to give him two attic rooms and two assistants; he started the first forensics lab. Enthusiasm and research overcame shortages of money and materials and Locard became internationally famous, eventually becoming the founder of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyons. Dr. Locard, like Bertillon before him, advocated the application of scientific methods and logic to criminal investigation and identification.

While Locard made many significant contributions (to fingerprinting, for example), he is most famous for his Exchange Principle. Due in no small part to Bertillon’s influence, it was Dr. Locard’s belief and assertion that when any person comes into contact with an object or another person, a cross-transfer of physical evidence occurs. By recognizing, documenting, and examining the nature and extent of this evidentiary exchange, Locard observed that criminals could be associated with particular locations, items of evidence and victims. The detection of the exchanged materials is interpreted to mean that the two objects were in contact. This is the cause and effect principle reversed; the effect is observed and the cause is concluded. Forensic scientists also recognize that the nature and extent of this exchange can be used not only to associate a criminal with locations, items, and victims, but with specific actions as well. In one of several famous cases, three men were suspects in a counterfeiting ring. Locard examined their clothing, and found minute metallic particles. Analysis showed these fragments to be exactly the same alloy as used in the coins. The suspects were arrested and later confessed.

Locard’s successes were pivotal in causing police in other nations (notably Austria, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Finland) to starts their own forensic labs.

III. Forensic Science in the U.S.

The early 20^th century saw the U.S. begin to take the lead in developing forensic science methods and facilities.

In 1907, August Vollmer (1876 - 1955), police chief in Berkeley, California, was investigating a homicide. He got a U.C. Berkeley chemistry professor to identify a suspected poison. However, the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment. Vollmer attributed their reticence to improper handling of the evidence by the police prior to analysis. As a result, he instituted a series of procedures for the proper collection, handling and preservation of evidence.

In 1923, Vollmer was serving a one-year stint as chief of the LAPD. While there he set-up the first crime lab in the U.S. The LA County Sheriff’s Office followed suit in 1930, and a California state lab was established in Sacramento in 1931. The cities of San Francisco and San Diego quickly followed in 1932 and ‘36, respectively. All these labs were quite small, but their presence indicates how the concept rapidly gained momentum.

Currently in California, the Bureau of Forensic Services is an arm of the Office of the Attorney General. There are 11 regional labs throughout the state. Any law enforcement group in the state can submit evidence to one of these labs. The California system is seen as a model of the regional and satellite approach to crime labs.

Many California counties and cities also continue to maintain their own forensics labs and these tend to operate independently of one another. In fact, California has more forensics labs than any other state. Both the LAPD and the LA County Sheriff labs still exist, and the former has been the subject of much maligning in recent years, particularly following the O. J. Simpson case. Currently there is an initiative to replace both of these labs with a single LA County Forensics Lab, although voters have not yet approved the money to do so.

Vollmer’s interest in merging academics with forensics was also somewhat ground-breaking. Paul Kirk (1902 -70), Professor of Biochemistry at UC Berkeley, became interested in criminalistics, established a criminalistics institute at UC Berkeley in 1937 (which was given full university recognition in 1948), and trained many of the first-generation lab directors throughout the U.S.

In 1929, a few years after the start of Vollmer’s seminal work, was the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago. Seven mobsters were assassinated, the result of a prohibition turf-war between the Al Capone and the “Bugs” Moran gangs. In the course of the subsequent grand jury investigation it was noted that no lab existed for the analysis of the many bullets and cartridges. Several influential jurors later raised funds to establish a permanent crime lab. The lab was set up at the Northwestern University School of Law, and Col. Calvin Goddard (1891 - 1955) was chosen as the first director. Goddard, a retired army physician, was an expert on ballistics and firearms but not much else. As part of his preparation for the new job he toured many European labs, where he was impressed with the sophistication of the investigators, the level of support services, the willingness of investigators to make use of the lab services, and by the fact that most police departments had access to the lab services. He noted that the high standards and broad-based support probably traced back to the fact that most of the European labs were nationally subsidized. The lab at Northwestern was transferred to the Chicago PD in 1938, and it is still operational today.

Theodore Roosevelt had founded the forerunner of the FBI– the Bureau of Investigation– in 1908. This was a fairly risky and progressive move. The U.S. has no national police because the Constitution reserves policing powers for the individual States. The federal government has powers only as regards interstate matters. Thus Roosevelt invited the disdain of many who felt he was, in fact, trying to establish a national police force.

In 1932, the BOI opened its Technical Laboratory, which originally was only for research. In 1935, the BOI was renamed as the FBI. The crime lab has grown to be the world’s largest and also one of the most respected. As we already know, the FBI is housed in the Department of Justice; the Lab works exclusively for the prosecution and handles only violent crimes. The lab is located in the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington, DC, and performs more than one million examinations per year. In additional, the Forensic Science Research and Training Center occupies space at the Bureau’s Quantico, VA, training facility. This facility is used to develop new procedures, carry out fundamental research, and train crime lab personnel.

There are other federal crime labs, too. Also housed within the Justice Department, the DEA maintains a number of labs in cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, McLean (VA), Miami and San Diego. The ATF also has labs which are held in very high regard, particularly concerning explosions, arson, bombs, trace analysis, and firearms. In December, 2002, the new 200,000 ft² National Laboratory and Fire Investigation Research and Education Center opened in suburban Maryland.

The Georgia General Assembly established the Department of Public Safety in 1937. Two divisions were created within the Department: a “uniform” division, the Georgia State Patrol, and a “plainclothes” division, first called the Division of Criminal Identification, Detection, Prevention and Investigation; this latter Division was renamed the Georgia Bureau of Investigation in 1940.

The Department was authorized to investigate all crimes occurring on State property or State highways. In addition, the GBI was authorized to maintain fingerprint and criminal histories and to assist all local agencies state-wide in criminal investigations, when requested to do so.

In the early 1940’s, Dr. Herman Jones introduced forensic laboratory work to Georgia while working with the Alabama Toxicology Laboratory. Jones established and became the director of the Fulton County Crime Laboratory in 1947.

In 1952 the Fulton County Crime Lab became the State Crime Lab, with Dr. Jones continuing on as the first director. The Georgia State Crime Lab was only the second state-wide crime lab in the U.S.

In 1972, the GBI was removed from the auspices of the Department of Public Safety and made an independent organization under direct control of the governor. In that same year, the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) was established as an arm of the GBI; its function is the rapid collection, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information related to criminal justice. Now, as then, the GBI consists of three divisions: Investigative Division, Division of Forensic Sciences (DOFS, or crime lab), and the GCIC.

In the ensuing years, Georgia (like California) has gone to the concept of regional crime labs. There now exist seven regional crime labs in the state, the original one in Decatur and satellites in Augusta, Columbus, Macon, Moultrie, Savannah and Summerville.

Any law enforcement agency in the State can send samples to the Crime Lab for analysis. Also, the Lab will permit investigators working for the defense to use the Lab’s equipment to re-analyze pertinent samples.

There is no single model for crime labs. As we have seen, California, Georgia and several other states have adopted the regional crime lab model. Other states (such as Montana) have a single crime lab which services the entire state. Sometimes counties and cities maintain their own labs (as is the case in several parts of California), and sometimes the state contracts with either private or university labs to perform various analyses.

In addition, there is a medical aspect to forensic science and this is often distinct from the crime lab. The medical aspects of death ordinarily are controlled through a medical examiner (ME) system, or a coroner system.

Florida and several other states operate under the medical examiner system. The state is divided into 24 districts and there is a District ME for each. Each is required to be an MD who practices pathology. The positions are filled via appointment by the governor for a period of three years.

In contrast, Louisiana and a number of other states operate under the coroner system. Each of the 64 parishes has a coroner, who is only required to be a licensed physician, unless none are available; in that case anyone will do! Further, the parish coroner is elected to a four year term.

While there are no hard-and-fast rules, the differences between ME’s and coroners are typified by the above. ME’s tend to be MD pathologists who are appointed, while coroners are often elected and may have no specialized pathology training.

Georgia is unusual in many ways. First, we have a “mixed” system, meaning there are both coroners and ME’s. Each of the 159 counties has an elected county coroner, each of whom serves a four year term. The requirements are minimal, including having a high school diploma or GED, having attained the age of 25, and having no felony convictions. On the other hand, there is a tier system of ME’s. At the apex is the State ME, who is appointed by the Director of the GBI. The State ME must be an MD certified in forensic pathology, and must have at least three years of experience as an ME. Each of the seven regional crime labs also has a Regional ME; the educational requirements are the same as for the State ME, although no prior experience is necessary. Finally, various counties and municipalities also have their own ME’s, and the requirements are progressively less severe than at the state level.

While in Georgia the ME’s are intimately associated with the state crime labs, such an arrangement is rather atypical. Very frequently the investigation into the manner of death (as performed by a coroner or ME) is a process very separate and distinct from the analyses performed by a crime lab. In Ohio, for example, each of the 88 counties has a coroner. In counties containing large municipalities, the coroners are pathologists, and there are a number of deputies and assistants. In addition, there are several regional crime labs. However, these are entirely separate facilities; the two operations– coroner and crime lab– are not connected logistically or organizationally.

IV. Forensic Science Services

As noted above, Forensic Science broadly divides into “medical” and “crime lab” components, and these two divisions are frequently separate from one another, both physically and logistically.

            Medical Aspects

Included here are the following disciplines:

Forensic Medicine, including pathology, forensic pathology, legal medicine and medical jurisprudence. Practitioners are usually ME’s (or coroners in large municipalities) who are MD’s and who have specialized certification in pathology or forensic pathology. They are concerned with cause and manner of death and also sometimes are involved in medical malpractice and insurance fraud cases. In Georgia, the ME has an obligation to investigate any death which appears to result from:

                        •          violence, suicide, or casualty

                        •          suddenness, when in apparent good health

                        •          when unattended by a physician

                        •          when an inmate of a state hospital or state, county, or city penal institution

                        •          when ordered by a court having criminal jurisdiction

                        •          after birth but before 7 years of age if the death is unexpected or unexplained

                        •          in any suspicious or unusual manner, with particular attention to those persons 16 years of age and under

                        •          as a result of an execution carried out pursuant to imposition of the death penalty.

The investigation will focus on answering these questions: Who is the victim? What injuries are present? Why, when and how were the injuries produced? The primary goal is first to determine the cause of death, which is a step-by-step specification of the events or conditions which caused death, starting from the most specific and expanding outward to the more general. As an example,

subdural hematoma

due to, or as a consequence of, blunt force head trauma

due to, or as a consequence of, a fall from a height

Once the cause of death is determined, the manner of death will then be classified as: natural, homicide, suicide, accident, or undetermined.

Time of death can be estimated in several ways.

                        •          Immediately after death, the muscles relax. But glycolysis continues for a short while and as ATP is hydrolyzed into ADP and lactic acid, strong chemical links are formed between the actin and myosin. The muscles become rigid with no associated shortening. This is rigor mortis. Rigor starts within ½ - 1 hour after death, is complete after 6-12 hours, and disappears after 24-48 hours because decomposition causes a lysing of the bonds.

                        •          Livor mortis is the settling of blood into the lower recesses of the body due to gravity. The engorged vessels then rupture, sending blood irreversibly into the tissues and causing the affected regions to turn dark purple-blue. No livor appears in areas which are restricted by clothing or other objects. Livor starts immediately after death and continues for up to 8-12 hours. It can be used to determine if a body was moved postmortem.

                        •          Algor mortis is the gradual cooling of the body to ambient temperature. As a general rule, the body loses 1 to 1½ ^oF/hour, starting about 1 hour postmortem. This is, however, only a crude estimate as the actual rate of loss can be influenced by myriad additional factors such as size of the victim, clothing, weather, body position, etc. One model gives the approximate number of hours postmortem as (98.4 - rectal temperature)/1.5 .

                        •          If an autopsy is performed, the amount and type of food in the stomach can also provide clues as to the time of death.

                        •          Lastly, upon death the cells on the inner surface of the eye begin releasing potassium into the vitreous humor (ocular fluid). By measuring the potassium levels at several intervals, the pathologist can determine the rate of release, and then work backward to determine the approximate time of death.

For older corpses, the overall condition will be controlled by two competing processes:

                        •          Decomposition, which is the breaking down of the body by action of its own enzymes, and

                        •          Putrefaction, wherein the bowels become permeable to their own bacteria, which then start to seep and grow in the body tissues.

After 12-36 hours, a greenish discoloration will begin in the lower right quadrant. Eventually this hue will spread to the entire body. It is due to the denaturation of hemoglobin via action of the putrefaction bacteria.

After 36-48 hours, marbling will occur. Blood in the vessels is hemolyzed, causing the blood vessels to be outlined in a dark green-black color.

After 36-72 hours the corpse will start to bloat, particularly in the facial and genital regions. This bloating is due to the buildup of the gases which accompany decomposition and putrefaction. After about 3 days, the gases will come pouring out of all the body’s orifices (nose, rectum, vagina, etc.) along with a bloody fluid called purge fluid. After 4-7 days, the skin starts to slip off.

For corpses which remain undiscovered for long periods, the outcomes can include

                        •          Skeletonization, which may take as little as 2 weeks or as long as 1½ years and is common in temperate regions,

                        •          Mummification, which is more common in arid regions wherein rapid water loss causes cessation of bacterial activity; it may start after one week but take up to six months to complete, and

                        •          Adipocere formation, which requires the corpse be in a moist and warm environment; it is common in bodies immersed in water. The fat is converted into free fatty acids which are then saponified. The “skin” has a slippery, greasy feel to it.

Forensic Odontology, or forensic dentistry, which is the application of dentistry to identification of human remains, especially in cases of mass disaster or in cases where the bodies would otherwise be unidentifiable. The enamel that comprises teeth is the hardest substance within a body, so teeth outlast all tissues and organs. Forensic odontologists may also be called upon to analyze bite marks in criminal cases. Forensic odontology is a subdiscipline of dentistry.

Forensic Anthropology, the practitioners of which are concerned with personal identification of victims based on skeletal remains. The rate of decay of bones is very slow, requiring many decades or even centuries. Bone injuries can lead to both an identification of a particular individual (by identifying an old break, for example), or, if fresh, can shed clues on the cause and manner of death. Even in the absence of injuries, bones can give clues as to the age, sex, weight and race of the victim. Sometimes faces can be reconstructed from skulls. Forensic anthropologists also develop data bases concerning average body structures as a function of age, weight, race, sex, etc. These data can later be used to start developing the profile of a skeletonized victim, as mentioned above. Practitioners are physical anthropologists.

Forensic Entomology, which can be an important way of estimating time or location of death. Immediately after decomposition begins, bodies are infested with insects, particularly blow flies, which are drawn to the mucus membranes of the nose, eyes, rectum, vagina and mouth. The eggs are laid in the decomposing flesh and tissue, and these ultimately mature into larvae (3 days), pupae (6 - 10 days), and adults (12 - 18 days). The stage of development of the blow flies is an indicator of time of death, while the precise insects present may provide a clue as to location of death. The analyses are actually quite complicated because the insect life cycles are extremely sensitive to ambient temperatures and other weather patterns.

Of these disciplines, Forensic Medicine is the most common. It is rare for an ME’s office to have a forensic odontologist, anthropologist or entomologist on staff. Rather, these services are often contracted out to appropriate university personnel. For example, one of the most famous forensic anthropologists is Dr. William M. Bass, Emeritus Professor at University of Tennessee at Knoxville, originator and director of the famous “Body Farm”. The same UT Knoxville Forensic Anthropology Center which employs Dr. Bass also has both forensic odontologists and forensic anthropologists on staff. In the same way, there are also those whose specialties are even more exotic, such as forensic psychiatrists, who make judgements about a suspect’s ability to stand trial, study behavioral patterns of criminals, and so forth

Crime Lab Aspects

These fields are often known collectively as criminalistics, although this name also implies a certain subdiscipline, as well. Included are all of the following:

Criminalistics, which is concerned with all manner of trace and transfer evidence analysis, including fibers, hairs, paint, glass, soil, blood and physiological fluids (serology), DNA, arson accelerants, explosive residues, drug identification, botanical specimens, and pattern and imprint interpretation. Criminalistics is the broadest area of work which is commonly done at a crime lab. It is entirely possible that Criminalistics will be split up among several smaller divisions, such as a Physical Science Unit (for evidence which is chemical, physical and/or geological in nature, such as drugs, paint, glass, soil, accelerants, residues, patterns and imprints), and a Biological Science Unit (responsible for hair and fibers, DNA, serology, botanical samples, etc.).

Toxicology, which has to do with the determination of toxins and drugs in human tissues and organs, and especially the role these toxins may have played in death.

Questioned Documents, which includes comparisons of handwriting, printed and copied materials, and analysis of the inks, toners, papers and other materials used to produce the documents. Also included are examinations of indented writings (such as those left underneath a piece of paper which has been written on), obliterations and erasures, and burned or charred documents.

Firearms and Toolmarks, which pertains to firearm identification and comparisons of markings on bullets, cartridges and other projectiles, especially for purposes of telling whether or not a particular projectile was fired from a particular firearm. Clothing is also examined in order to detect powder residues, as well as to estimate how far away was the weapon responsible for the residue. Toolmark identification is much the same enterprise except that it might include marks left by burglary tools, for example.

Fingerprints, which includes classification and organization of prints into useable data bases, development of latent prints, and comparisons with known and unknown prints.

Photography, both as a means of recording evidence (perhaps using very specialized films and techniques, like UV, IR and X-Ray photography) and in the preparation of photographic displays to be used during trial.

Voiceprint Analysis, which involves trying to individualize a voice to a particular person by comparing the sound spectrograph of a suspect’s voice to that found on a recording (perhaps a threat left on an answering machine or recorded surreptitiously during a telephone conversation).

Evidence Collection. Here, a group of highly trained technicians are sent to major crime scenes to document, collect and preserve physical evidence, which then will be sent to the crime lab for analysis.

These areas of specialization are somewhat arbitrary. For example, Firearms and Toolmarks is sometimes included along with criminalistics, and hairs are sometimes grouped along with forensic anthropology. Toxicology is frequently a subspecialty of the ME’s office. Further, it is unlikely that any one crime lab would have every subdiscipline represented. Also there are other disciplines which are springing up all the time; one obvious one is computer crimes, which is an area becoming increasingly represented in crime labs.

While it takes considerable specialized and advanced training to enter the medical end of forensic science, the typical preparation for a technical crime lab worker is to earn a bachelor’s degree in either biology or (more commonly) chemistry, followed by either a master’s degree in one of these areas or perhaps with simply on-the-job training at a crime lab. There are a few schools with bachelor programs in forensic science (such as Ohio University, which has a Bachelor of Forensic Chemistry degree), but this is somewhat rare. However, to rise to a level of significant responsibility in a crime lab will require a Ph.D. degree, often in either chemistry or biology. As graduate schools develop forensic science departments and programs, it is likely that a Ph.D. degree in forensic science will ultimately be required for the positions of highest responsibility. In all cases, significant continuing education will be necessitated.

The number of crime labs in the U.S. is growing rapidly. Currently, there are about 320 labs, triple the number 40 years ago. This great expansion can be traced to three principal reasons:

            •          Supreme Court decisions during the 1960’s, which emphasized criminals’ rights at the expense of those of law enforcement. Confession is now all but unknown. As a result, police have had to greatly hone and expand their investigative techniques and skills, resulting in a much greater emphasis on collection and use of physical evidence.

            •          A staggering increase in the crime rate, especially drug cases, which are the sources of much of the physical evidence sent to most crime labs.

            •          DNA analysis, which has been developed and subsequently matured in just the last couple decades. The technology, while impressive, is also very time-consuming, technically advanced, and labor-intensive.

Crime labs run the gamut from one-person operations devoted exclusively to drug analyses all the way to the FBI lab, which employs hundreds. By way of examining some actual crime labs, the FBI Crime Lab, the world’s largest, is subdivided into 19 sections:

            •          Chemistry (inks, lubricants, dyes, paints, plastics, tapes, materials characterization, toxicology)

            •          Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) (which allows federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to exchange and compare DNA profiles via the computer)

            •          Computer Analysis and Response (search and seizure of computer evidence)

            •          DNA Analysis (including serology)

            •          Evidence Response (supervises and coordinates Evidence Response Teams– ERT’s– which organize and conduct major recovery operations in which the FBI has jurisdiction)

            •          Explosives

            •          Firearms and Toolmarks

            •          Audio, Video and Image Analysis (authenticate, enhance, compare and repair audio, video and photographic media)

            •          Research (R&D and advanced training)

            •          Training (trains new FBI and DEA personnel, as well as other federal, state and local crime lab and law enforcement personnel)

            •          Hazardous Materials Response (respond to threats involving biological, chemical and nuclear materials, as well as environmental crimes)

            •          Investigative and Prosecutive Graphics (plan, coordinate and design visual aids for prosecution of cases)

            •          Latent Fingerprints

            •          Materials Analysis (geological, metallurgical and elemental analyses)

            •          Questioned Documents

            •          Racketeering Records (examination of logbooks, bank accounts, real estate and tax records, coded messages and wiretap calls with special attention to gambling, prostitution, money laundering and drugs)

            •          Special Photographic Analysis

            •          Structural Design (plan, coordinate, design and build models to aid in prosecuting cases, such as scale models of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City)

            •          Trace Evidence (essentially the balance of criminalistics, including fibers, fabrics, hair, rope, feathers and wood. There are also forensic odontologists and forensic anthropologists on staff)

Clearly the FBI lab is extensive by anyone’s standards. Perhaps more typical is the (original) GBI lab in Decatur. In addition to an Administrative Section, the lab has 10 working sections which include:

            •          Trace Evidence

            •          Firearms

            •          Drug Identification

            •          Implied Consent (Alcohol Testing)

            •          Latent Prints

            •          Pathology

            •          Questioned Documents

            •          Forensic Biology (Serology and DNA)

            •          Toxicology

            •          Photography

Again, the unusual aspect of the GBI lab is that the medical aspect, pathology, is under the direct control of the crime lab, itself.

            Additional Aspects

Beyond the medical and crime lab aspects to forensics, there are a few other disciplines that are sometimes encountered, but which don’t fit nicely into one group or the other. Included here would be such things as

Forensic accountants, who specialize in looking for criminal activity on a company’s books or within an individual’s bank account records, and

Forensic engineers, who are engaged in failure analysis, accident reconstructions, and the causes and origins of fires and explosions.

This course will deal principally with criminalistics (in the larger sense); that is, with the “crime lab”, rather than the “medical” or “additional” aspects of forensic science.

.

V. The Basics

We would all like to think that law enforcement tirelessly investigates all crimes, no matter who is the victim or how serious the crime is judged to be. That is not the case.

The amount of forensic investigation which is ever possible is largely controlled by decisions made by the original investigators, and these are almost invariably police. Different crimes do not receive the same amount of investigative attention. Frequently, the level of attention is not even proportional to the level of occurrence of a particular crime. For example, burglaries may occur 50 times more frequently than homicides, yet burglary investigations may receive only a small fraction of the time invested in a single homicide. In general, crimes against persons are investigated much more thoroughly than crimes against property.

Here, then, is the first problem. If the original investigators decide that the crime is not worth significant investigatory time they will not go about the business of collecting physical evidence. In fact, it has been estimated that only 1-2% of all physical evidence is ever collected and submitted. Once the crime scene is subsequently disturbed the evidence is tainted and can never be collected. Thus the opportunity for forensic analysis is lost forever.

Even if the original investigators decide to collect physical evidence, there is no guarantee that they will focus on the right evidence. For example, there are some types of cases which depend almost entirely on certain types of physical evidence if they are to proceed; drug and rape cases are two such. Unless the drug in question is collected and positively identified in the lab (as opposed to presumptively identified “on the street”), the case is lost. Sometimes it is also necessary to determine the amount of the drug. In a case of rape, the charge usually cannot be sustained unless there is evidence of penetration as established in the lab. Thus, it is imperative that the original investigator collect and preserve the correct type of evidence.

Unfortunately, decisions about the extent of physical-evidence involvement in the search and investigation stages of a case are usually not made by forensic scientists but by police officers or evidence technicians. There is no guarantee that either of these parties will appreciate the nature or importance of the evidence.

There are two methods of trying to rectify this problem. The first is the development of specialized evidence collection teams. For example, as noted above, the FBI has a number of Evidence Response Teams (ERT’s). Similarly, the GBI has several Crime Scene Specialists (CSS’s), which basically serve the same function. However, these groups must ordinarily be called in by state or local authorities if they are to be effective. In a state like Georgia, it is hoped that there will be a regional or satellite crime lab near all major municipalities, thereby increasing the likelihood of such requests being made. Another strategy is to use forensic science personnel to train police agencies in both the appreciation and collection of physical evidence via ongoing communication and continuing education classes.

Once the crime scene has been processed, the case enters its investigative stage. Here, again, the tendency is to underutilize physical evidence. Very little use is ever made of forensic evidence in the establishment of a suspect. More likely, the police use other techniques to develop a suspect, and then use forensic science to either confirm or refute their theories. This problem is exacerbated because in most cases there is no coordination between the lab and the investigators. The regional crime lab system, like in Georgia and Tennessee, is seen as one way to combat these tendencies. No matter where the crime occurs, it is hoped that there will be a state crime lab in relatively close proximity, and even that the law enforcement personnel will be personally acquainted with appropriate crime lab personnel and thus more likely to call on them for assistance.

Surprisingly, very little use is made of our labs for analyzing evidence from index crimes (murder, sexual offenses, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny involving more than $50, and motor vehicle theft). Rather, most all cases involve statutory examinations, such as drug identification and blood-alcohol analyses; these make up most of the typical lab casework. As already noted, increased drug crimes alone are thought to be largely responsible for the dramatic increase in forensic labs and personnel over the past 40 years.

Now, supposing that a case is such that the crime lab is involved. What, exactly, is expected on the analyst? It is perhaps tempting to say that the analyst strives for “truth”. This would be too generous. Science is not so much about truth as it is about reproducibility, explanation and predictability. Science is fundamentally an inductive pursuit, not a deductive one. And this is particularly true of forensic science.

Deduction, of course, begins with a set of laws or postulates, from which various consequences are deduced logically. Induction, on the other hand, begins by looking at large amounts of data and then working backwards, trying to uncover one or a few underlying events (or phenomena) which will explain the myriad observations. It is induction which carries us from observation to hypothesis, the first step in the scientific method. Once formed, the hypothesis should lead to additional testing, and subsequent refinement of the hypothesis. Finally, it is hoped that the experimentation and the hypothesis are self-consistent, in which case we have arrived at the end answer, called the theory.

It is important to recognize that deduction may lead to “truth”, but induction can only ever lead to “self-consistency”. For example, here is a typical deductive argument: Atoms contain protons; molecules contain atoms. Therefore, molecules contain protons. If the two original premises are true, then the deductive consequence must also be. In contrast, here is an inductive argument: Over the course of the last century, millions of fingerprints have been catalogued. No two are identical and no one’s fingerprints have ever been seen to change with age. Thus, fingerprints are unique to an individual. Note that the conclusion is not rigorously proved. Rather, the conclusion is simply consistent with all available observations. In fact, the amount of evidence is so vast that the conclusion is unlikely to be false. Thus, to be useful at a practical level, it is only necessary that a scientist’s conclusion be very likely to be correct.

Of course, one problem here is that observations can and often do support false hypotheses. For instance, suppose one hypothesized that heating an object always caused its temperature to increase. Limited experiments might verify this incorrect hypothesis. Only if one heats a material far enough to induce a phase transition will one become aware of the fallacy of the original contention. So if one’s inductive theories are to be trusted extensive testing is mandated. Another consequence of this is that it is quite likely in all instances that more and more testing will yield an inexplicable result, meaning that a modified hypothesis must be developed. Thus, in science, yesterday’s “truth” is not necessarily the same as tomorrow’s.

One of the ways forensic science is unique from natural science concerns the nature of the observations to be made. A traditional natural scientist has some control over what experiments are of interest and how he goes about getting samples of materials to work with, their age, condition, purity, etc. In contrast, in forensic science someone must first recognize that a particular item constitutes a piece of physical evidence; as we have seen, it is often the case that others actually make this choice for the forensic scientist. So sampling is rarely up to the forensic examiner. Consequently, he has little or no knowledge about the condition or past history of the sample.

Having been presented with a piece of physical evidence, the goals of the forensic scientist are three-fold: (1) identification, (2) individualization, and (3) reconstruction. Only the first of these is common in the other natural sciences. The last two are almost entirely within the purview of forensic science.

Identification is essentially a classification scheme, common in all science, where objects are assigned to categories and given names. Different items in the same category all have the same name. Thus, determining whether remains are human or not is a process of identification. Determining whether a particular liquid is gasoline is an identification. And determining whether a dried stain is human semen is an identification.

Identification is accomplished by comparing the properties of the unknown material with the class characteristics of the group, as they have been previously established. Class characteristics are properties that all members of a certain group must possess.

The second step is individualization, and it is common only in forensic science. It involves proving that a particular sample is unique, even among members of the same class. Individualization may also refer to the demonstration that a questioned sample and a known sample are of a common origin. Here we are operating under the assumption that objects possess individual characteristics that can be used to distinguish them from other members of the same class. For example, proving that remains are human is an identification; proving that the remains are those of John Doe is an individualization. Proving that a liquid is gasoline is an identification; proving that the questioned gasoline has precisely the same chemical and physical properties as the gasoline in the can at the residence of John Doe is an individualization. Clearly, fingerprints, DNA and dental records provide means of individualization, rather than the more common (but incorrect) notion that they provide means of identification.

Individualization is the most demanding requirement placed on a forensic scientist. For most types of evidence, individualization is an as yet unrealized objective. In the end, individualization is a matter of statistical probability. For example, suppose one is presented a paint chip and asked to prove whether or not it came from a particular car. If the chip edges and area match a scratch on the car (a “jig-saw” fit), the evidence is deemed conclusive. But what if it doesn’t? Then one must be prepared to say how likely it would be for some other paint chip to have all the chemical and physical properties as the questioned chip. This requires an enormous data base of paint analyses. A similar situation arises in the analysis of fibers, hairs and blood groups. To cite another example, suppose a suspect was known to have type A blood and a victim had type O blood. The suspect had a drop of type O blood on his socks. One can certainly testify that such a finding is consistent with the suspect causing harm to the victim, but that is about all that can be inferred. To make a more meaningful individualization, one would either have to do a DNA test on the blood, or perhaps be able to quote the probability that any random person might have socks containing a spatter of type O blood. Surprisingly, the probability of the latter event is likely much more significant than most people would think.

The final step in the process is reconstruction. Here, the various pieces of identified and individualized physical evidence are put together inductively to arrive at a hypothesis for the reconstruction of the crime, meaning that one establishes the likely sequence of events. This is difficult to do, and is often impossible. However, it is especially valuable in cases where there is no eyewitness testimony, or where such testimony may be deemed unreliable. Like individualization, reconstruction is unique to forensic science.

Implicitly, another way in which forensic science is unique among natural sciences is its constant interaction with the legal system, particularly law enforcement and the judiciary. This starts with evidence collection, which is often controlled by law enforcement. Then there is the matter of crime labs generally being controlled by (or strongly linked with) prosecutors and/or police. For example, we have seen that the FBI is a part of the Department of Justice and works exclusively for the prosecution. The GBI crime lab is a part of the same infrastructure that includes state investigators. The LAPD and LASD crime labs work exclusively with those policing agencies. All this is a reflection of the adversarial nature of our justice system which holds that experts retained by one side not be available to work for the opposing side.

Like other scientists, forensic scientists think of themselves as unbiased and unprejudiced gleaners of the “truth”, and would deny that their opinions are unfairly skewed by the fact that they are employed by the prosecution. Indeed, they prefer to think of themselves as providing evidence to the Court rather than to the prosecution. The rules of discovery also help to even the playing field; by these rules, the prosecution must share its evidence with the defense prior to a criminal trial, although the converse is not usually required. But the fact remains that while various tests may, themselves, be unbiased and objective, the interpretations of those tests (particularly as regards individualization and reconstruction) can be highly subjective. For example, a test for blood might be viewed as only presumptive by one forensic scientist, but may well be considered proof positive by another. It stands to reason that the opposing attorneys will want to find forensic scientists who happen to hold the opinion most beneficial to their client. For this reason, there are a number of independent forensics labs in the country. However, most of these, based on their past case work, will work only for the prosecution or the defense.

The biggest use of forensic science is at the adjudication stage of a case. An ordinary (or lay) witness at a trial can only offer evidence of things he actually witnessed, and he may neither speculate nor offer an opinion. In contrast, expert witnesses are permitted to offer opinions in order to help the Court evaluate evidence that the Court lacks expertise with. The opinions are viewed as being only those of the witness, and the jury is free to ignore the experts’ opinions

For many years, the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence was established in the case of Frye v. United States (1923). James Fry was convicted of second degree murder; he appealed the decision. The issue presented for appellate consideration was that defense counsel offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a systolic blood pressure deception test, a rudimentary precursor to the lie detector, and was denied. They further offered that a test be conducted in the courtroom and were again denied. The Court concluded that the trial judge acted properly in prohibiting the test, and that

“The rule is that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses are admissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, for the reason that the subject-matter so far partakes of a science, art, or trade as to require a previous habit or experience or study in it, in order to acquire a knowledge of it. When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.”

“Numerous cases are cited in support of this rule. Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

To satisfy the Frey standard, the proponent of a particular methodology has to bring various experts before the Court, all of whom will have to testify that the method under review is one that is broadly accepted by the relevant members of the scientific community. Also, books and scholarly articles constitute compelling proof of a method’s general acceptance, as do prior judicial decisions relating to the technique in question.

Although Frye was the standard for a long while it came under increasing attack for not being flexible enough in cases involving the newest scientific discoveries which, by their very nature, had not yet had time enough to gain widespread support.

Some federal courts felt that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provided a more flexible standard:

“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient 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.”

In a 1993 case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., the petitioners (two minor children and their parents) alleged that the childrens’ serious birth defects had been caused by the mother’s prenatal ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription drug marketed by Merrell Dow. The trial court granted the pharmaceutical company a summary judgment based on a well-credentialed expert’s affidavit concluding that maternal use of Bendectin had not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects. Although the Dauberts’ attorneys had responded with the testimony of eight other well-credentialed experts, who based their conclusion that Bendectin can cause birth defects on animal studies, chemical structure analyses, and the unpublished “reanalysis” of previously published human statistical studies, the court determined that this evidence did not meet the applicable “general acceptance” standard for the admission of expert testimony. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed, citing Frye v. United States for the rule that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is “generally accepted” as reliable in the relevant scientific community.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Appeals Court decision, saying that Rule 702 superceded the Frye standard, which was too strict, and that Rule 702 assigns to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony is reliable and relevant. In a sense, the judge is the gatekeeper for the admissibility of expert witnesses. Some guidelines include

            •          Whether the techniques can be, and has been, tested

            •          Whether the technique has been subjected to peer review and publication

            •          The potential error rate

            •          The existence or maintenance of controls and standards, and

            •          Whether the technique has attracted widespread acceptance within the scientific community

Addressing the issue that relaxing the Frye standard would cause the wholesale introduction of inane pseudoscientific theories into the courtroom, the Court said

“Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof, rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising ‘general acceptance’ standard, is the appropriate means by which evidence based on valid principles may be challenged.”

Of course, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (as well as the case law cited above) governs only the federal judiciary. Since Daubert, some states (like California and Florida) have decided to stick with the Frye standard, while others (including Oklahoma and Texas) have adopted a Daubert standard. Still others (including Georgia) have written their own standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence. The applicable Georgia code is 24-9-67, which reads:

“The opinions of experts on any question of science, skill, trade, or like questions shall always be admissible; and such opinions may be given on the facts as proved by other witnesses.”

It is frequently fairly easy to be accepted as an expert witness by a court. Generally it is only necessary to establish that one has some experience, education, training, skill or knowledge that will aid the Court in determining the truth of the matter at hand. Expert witnesses can be expected to be quizzed by the opposing side about their qualifications. As has been pointed out, experts can disagree about the meanings of certain pieces of evidence, and ultimately the judge or jury will have to sort out the relative merits of the various experts’ opinions.

An interesting case arising from the state of Florida is Coppolino v. State (1968). Recall that Florida was a Frye state in 1968 (as it still is today). Dr. Carl Coppolino, an anesthesiologist, lived with his wife in New Jersey. He developed a romantic relationship with his neighbor, Marjorie Farber. Her husband died in his sleep. The Coppolinos moved to Florida. The widow, Marjorie Farber, followed, purchasing an adjacent lot.

Shortly thereafter, Coppolino asked his wife for a divorce so he could marry a rich divorcee, Mary Gibson, whom he met at a bridge club. The wife would not consent. Soon afterward, she died in her sleep. Five weeks later, Coppolino married Gibson.

Marjorie Farber then reported to the police in Florida that Coppolino killed his wife. She knew, she said, because she helped him kill her husband. New Jersey authorities exhumed the wife’s body. The autopsy revealed a needle puncture mark in the left buttock, a healthy heart and no discernible cause of death. A later autopsy on Farber’s husband produced evidence of death by strangulation, which was consistent with her story that Coppolino smothered him in his sleep.

Grand juries in New Jersey and Florida indicted Coppolino for homicide. The New Jersey trial, which came first, resulted in an acquittal. The jury in Florida returned a verdict of second degree murder, and Coppolino went to prison on a life sentence.

Toxicological testimony was vital evidence in the Florida case. The prosecution’s theory was that Coppolino injected his victims with succinylcholine, a curare-like drug which had never before been detected in the human body. The toxicologist, Joe Umberger, worked on the tissues for a long time. It was impossible by the methods of toxicologic analysis to find the original substance in the body, as succinylcholine is broken down within minutes to succinic acid and choline. Although these two compounds are normally present in dead tissue, they are there in such small quantities that ordinary techniques fail to detect them. Umberger devised a method that would show up abnormally large amounts of the two substances but would not react with the minute quantities normally present. Using this technique, he eventually proved to his satisfaction that there was an abnormally high concentration of succinic acid in the organs of the body. He could not show that there was an excess in the left buttock itself, as he could not apply the technique to fatty tissue. Subsequently, the ME testified that the victim died from an overdose of succinylcholine chloride. The defense objected, saying that the test was new and not widely accepted. The court rejected that argument, saying that it was constantly necessary to develop new techniques and that “Society need not tolerate homicide until there develops a body of medical literature about some particular lethal agent.”

Assignments:

            •          Read Chapter 1 Case Reading (“Detection of Curare in the Jascalevich Murder Trial”, pages 26-33 in the text).

            •          Read David E. Bernstein, “Frye, Frye Again: The Past, Present and Future of the General Acceptance Test”, Jurimetrics J., 41 (2001) 385. (See Chapter 1 Links)

            •          Read David E. Bernstein and Jeffrey D. Jackson, “The Daubert Trilogy in the States”, Jurimetrics J. (forthcoming). (See Chapter 1 Links)