Dr walter c mccrone forensic science

Case Study: Use The Internet To Research Harold Shipman (Aka Dr. Death), The English Doctor Who Is Estimated To Have Killed Over 236 Of His Patients.

Criminalistics An Introduction to Forensic Science

edition10> > > > > > > > > > > >

Prentice Hall Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River

Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

Richard Saferstein, Ph.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey Lecturer, Widener University School of Law

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 65

93 -9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Marketing Assistant: Les Roberts Manager, Rights and Permissions: Zina Arabia Manager, Visual Research: Beth Brenzel Manager, Cover Visual Research & Cover Permissions: Karen

Sanatar Image Interior Permission Coordinator: Annette Linder Image Cover Permission Coordinator: Kathy Mazzucca Media Editor: Michelle Churma Media Project Manager: Karen Bretz Full-Service Project Management: Linda Zuk, WordCraft LLC Copy Editor: Amy Schneider Composition: S4Carlisle Publishing Services Printer/Binder: Quebecor Printing/Dubuque Cover Printer: Coral Graphics Text Font: Times Roman

Editor in Chief: Vernon R. Anthony Acquisitions Editor: Eric Krassow Editorial Assistant: Lynda Kramer Senior Managing Editor: JoEllen Gohr Project Manager: Steve Robb AV Project Manager: Janet Portisch Senior Operations Supervisor: Pat Tonneman Operations Specialist: Matt Ottenweller Art Director: Diane Ernsberger Text Designer: Rokusek Design Cover designer: Rokusek Design Cover photo: MedicalRF.com/Corbis Director of Marketing: David Gesell Marketing Manager: Adam Kloza Senior Marketing Coordinator: Alicia Wozniak

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on the appropriate pages within the text.

Microsoft® and Windows® are registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation in the U.S.A. and other countries. Screen shots and icons reprinted with permission from the Microsoft Corporation. This book is not sponsored or endorsed by or affiliated with the Microsoft Corporation.

Copyright © 2011, 2007, 2004, 1998, 1995 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall, 1 Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, me- chanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, 1 Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.

Many of the designations by manufacturers and seller to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Saferstein, Richard

Criminalistics : an introduction to forensic science / Richard Saferstein.—10th ed. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-504520-6 ISBN-10: 0-13-504520-7

1. Criminal investigation. 2. Forensic ballistics. 3. Chemistry, Forensic. 4. Medical jurisprudence. I. Title. HV8073.S24 2011 363.25—dc22

2009042128

ISBN 10: 0-13-504520-7 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-504520-6

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Ted Bundy, Serial Killer

The name Ted Bundy is synonymous with the term serial killer. This handsome, gregarious, and worldly onetime law student is believed to be responsible for forty murders between 1964 and 1978. His reign of terror stretched from the Pacific Northwest down into California and into Utah, Idaho, and Colorado, finally ending in Florida. His victims were typically young women, usually murdered with a blunt instrument or by strangulation and sexually assaulted before and after death. First convicted in Utah in 1976 on a charge of kidnapping, Bundy managed to escape after his extradition to Colorado on a murder charge. Ultimately, Bundy found his way to the Tallahassee area of Florida. There he unleashed mayhem, killing two women at a Florida State University sorority house and then murdering a 12-year-old girl three weeks later. Fortunately, future

victims were spared when Bundy was arrested while driving a stolen vehicle. As police

investigated the sorority murders, they noted that one victim, who had been beaten over the head with a log, raped, and strangled, also had bite

marks on her left buttock and breast. Supremely confident that he could beat the sorority murder charges, the arrogant Bundy insisted on

acting as his own attorney. His unfounded optimism was shattered in the courtroom when a forensic odontologist matched the bite mark on the victim’s buttock to Bundy’s front teeth. Bundy was ultimately executed in 1989.

headline news

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

After studying this chapter you should be able to: • Define and distinguish forensic science and criminalistics

• Recognize the major contributors to the development of forensic science

• Account for the rapid growth of forensic laboratories in the past forty years

• Describe the services of a typical comprehensive crime laboratory in the criminal justice system

• Compare and contrast the Frye and Daubert decisions relating to the admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom

• Explain the role and responsibilities of the expert witness

• Understand what specialized forensic services, aside from the crime laboratory, are generally available to law enforcement personnel

Introduction

expert witness Locard’s exchange

principle scientific method

KEY TERMS

> > > > > > > > > > > > chapter 1

Le ar

ni ng

O b

je ct

iv es

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

4 CHAPTER 1

Definition and Scope of Forensic Science Forensic science, in its broadest definition, is the application of science to law. As our society has grown more complex, it has become more dependent on rules of law to regulate the activities of its members. Forensic science applies the knowledge and technology of science to the definition and enforcement of such laws.

Each year, as government finds it increasingly necessary to regulate the activities that most intimately influence our daily lives, science merges more closely with civil and criminal law. Consider, for example, the laws and agencies that regulate the quality of our food, the nature and potency of drugs, the extent of automobile emissions, the kind of fuel oil we burn, the purity of our drinking water, and the pesticides we use on our crops and plants. It would be difficult to conceive of any food and drug regulation or environmental protection act that could be effectively monitored and enforced without the assistance of scientific technology and the skill of the scientific community.

Laws are continually being broadened and revised to counter the alarming increase in crime rates. In response to public concern, law enforcement agencies have expanded their patrol and investigative functions, hoping to stem the rising tide of crime. At the same time they are looking more to the scientific community for advice and technical support for their efforts. Can the tech- nology that put astronauts on the moon, split the atom, and eradicated most dreaded diseases be enlisted in this critical battle? Unfortunately, science cannot offer final and authoritative solutions to problems that stem from a maze of social and psychological factors. However, as the contents of this book will attest, science does occupy an important and unique role in the criminal justice system—a role that relates to the scientist’s ability to supply accurate and objective information that reflects the events that have occurred at a crime. It will also become apparent to the reader that a good deal of work remains to be done if the full potential of science as applied to criminal investigations is to be realized.

Considering the vast array of civil and criminal laws that regulate society, forensic science, in its broadest sense, has become so comprehensive a subject as to make a meaningful introduc- tory textbook treatment of its role and techniques most difficult, if not overwhelming. For this reason, we must find practical limits that narrow the scope of the subject. Fortunately, common usage provides us with such a limited definition: Forensic science is the application of science to the criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system. Forensic science is an umbrella term encompassing a myriad of professions that use their skills to help law enforcement officials conduct their investigations.

The diversity of professions practicing forensic science is illustrated by the eleven sections of the American Academy of Forensic Science, the largest forensic science organization in the world:

1. Criminalistics 2. Digital and Multimedia Sciences 3. Engineering Sciences 4. General 5. Jurisprudence 6. Odontology 7. Pathology/Biology 8. Physical Anthropology 9. Psychiatry/Behavioral Sciences

10. Questioned Documents 11. Toxicology

Even within the limited definition just presented, we will restrict our discussion in this book to the areas of chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and computer technology, which are useful for determining the evidential value of crime-scene and related evidence, omitting any references to medicine and law. Forensic pathology, psychology, anthropology, and odontology encompass important and relevant areas of knowledge and practice in law enforcement, each being an integral part of the total forensic science service that is provided to any up-to-date crim- inal justice system. However, except for brief discussions, these subjects go beyond the intended range of this book, and the reader is referred elsewhere for discussions of their applications and

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

INTRODUCTION 5

techniques.1 Instead, we will attempt to focus on the services of what has popularly become known as the crime laboratory, where the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences are practiced and applied to the analysis of crime-scene evidence.

For many, the term criminalistics seems more descriptive than forensic science for describ- ing the services of a crime laboratory. The two terms will be used interchangeably in this text. Regardless of title—criminalist or forensic scientist—the trend of events has made the scientist in the crime laboratory an active participant in the criminal justice system.

Primetime television shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have greatly increased the public’s awareness of the use of science in criminal and civil investigations. However, by simpli- fying scientific procedures to fit into the available airtime, these shows have created unrealistic expectations of forensic science skills within both the public and the legal community. In these shows, members of the CSI team collect evidence at the crime scene, process all evidence, ques- tion witnesses, interrogate suspects, carry out search warrants, and testify in court. In the real world, these tasks are almost always delegated to different people in different parts of the crimi- nal justice system. Procedures that could take days, weeks, months, or years in reality appear on these shows to take mere minutes. This false image is especially relevant to the pub- lic’s high interest in and expectations for DNA evidence.

The dramatization of forensic science on television has led the public to believe that every crime scene will yield forensic evidence and produces unrealistic expec- tations that a prosecutor’s case should always be bolstered and supported by foren- sic evidence. This phenomenon is known as the CSI effect. Some jurists have come to believe that this phenomenon ultimately detracts from the search for truth and justice in the courtroom.

History and Development of Forensic Science Forensic science owes its origins first to the individuals who developed the princi- ples and techniques needed to identify or compare physical evidence, and second to those who recognized the need to merge these principles into a coherent discipline that could be practically applied to a criminal justice system.

Literary Roots Today many believe that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had a considerable influence on popularizing scientific crime-detection methods through his fictional character Sherlock Holmes (see Figure 1–1), who first applied the newly developing princi- ples of serology (see Chapter 10), fingerprinting, firearms identification, and questioned-document examination long before their value was first recognized and accepted by real-life criminal investigators. Holmes’s feats excited the imagination of an emerging generation of forensic scientists and criminal investigators. Even in the first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887, we find ex- amples of Doyle’s uncanny ability to describe scientific methods of detection years before they were actually discovered and implemented. For instance, here Holmes probes and recognizes the potential usefulness of forensic serology to criminal investigation:

“I’ve found it. I’ve found it,” he shouted to my companion, running towards us with a test tube in his hand. “I have found a reagent which is precipitated by hemoglobin and by nothing else. . . . Why, man, it is the most practical medico-legal discovery for years. Don’t you see that it gives us an infallible test for blood stains? . . . The old guaiacum test was very clumsy and uncertain.

1 Two excellent references are André A. Moenssens, Fred E. Inbau, James Starrs, and Carol E. Henderson, Scientific Ev- idence in Civil and Criminal Cases, 4th ed. (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1995); and Werner U. Spitz, ed., Medicolegal Investigation of Death, 4th ed. (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 2006).

FIGURE 1–1 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective Sherlock Holmes applied many of the principles of modern forensic science long before they were adopted widely by police. © Paul C. Chauncey/CORBIS. All rights reserved.

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

So is the microscopic examination for blood corpuscles. The latter is valueless if the stains are a few hours old. Now, this appears to act as well whether the blood is old or new. Had this test been invented, there are hundreds of men now walking the earth who would long ago have paid the penalty of their crimes. . . . Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A man is suspected of a crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or clothes are examined and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they blood stains, or rust stains, or fruit stains, or what are they? That is a question which has puzzled many an expert, and why? Because there was no reliable test. Now we have the Sherlock Holmes test, and there will no longer be any difficulty.”

Important Contributors to Forensic Science Many people can be cited for their specific contributions to the field of forensic science. The following is just a brief list of those who made the earliest contributions to formulating the disci- plines that now constitute forensic science.

MATHIEU ORFILA (1787–1853) Orfila is considered the father of forensic toxicology. A native of Spain, he ultimately became a renowned teacher of medicine in France. In 1814, Orfila published the first scientific treatise on the detection of poisons and their effects on animals. This treatise established forensic toxicology as a legitimate scientific endeavor.

ALPHONSE BERTILLON (1853–1914) Bertillon devised the first scientific system of personal identification. In 1879, Bertillon began to develop the science of anthropometry (see Chapter 16), a systematic procedure of taking a series of body measurements as a means of distinguishing one individual from another. (See Figure 1–2.) For nearly two decades, this system was considered the most accurate method of personal identification. Although anthropometry was eventually replaced by fingerprinting in the early 1900s, Bertillon’s early efforts have earned him the dis- tinction of being known as the father of criminal identification.

FRANCIS GALTON (1822–1911) Galton undertook the first definitive study of fingerprints and developed a methodology of classifying them for filing. In 1892, he published a book titled Finger Prints, which contained the first statistical proof supporting the uniqueness of his method of personal identification. His work went on to describe the basic principles that form the present system of identification by fingerprints.

LEONE LATTES (1887–1954) In 1901, Dr. Karl Landsteiner discovered that blood can be grouped into different categories. These blood groups or types are now recognized as A, B, AB, and O. The possibility that blood grouping could be a useful characteristic for the identification of an indi- vidual intrigued Dr. Lattes, a professor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turin in Italy. In 1915, he devised a relatively simple procedure for determining the blood group of a dried bloodstain, a technique that he immediately applied to criminal investigations.

CALVIN GODDARD (1891–1955) To determine whether a particular gun has fired a bullet requires a comparison of the bullet with one that has been test-fired from the suspect’s weapon. Goddard, a U.S. Army colonel, refined the techniques of such an examination by using the comparison microscope. Goddard’s expertise established the comparison microscope as the indispensable tool of the modern firearms examiner.

ALBERT S. OSBORN (1858–1946) Osborn’s development of the fundamental principles of document examination was responsible for the acceptance of documents as scientific evidence by the courts. In 1910, Osborn authored the first significant text in this field, Questioned Documents. This book is still considered a primary reference for document examiners.

WALTER C. McCRONE (1916–2002) Dr. McCrone’s career paralleled startling advances in sophisticated analytical technology. Nevertheless, during his lifetime McCrone became the world’s preeminent microscopist. Through his books, journal publications, and research institute, McCrone was a tireless advocate for applying microscopy to analytical problems, particularly

6 CHAPTER 1 IS

B N

1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

FIGURE 1–2 Bertillon’s system of bodily measurements as used for the identification of an individual. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

CHAPTER 1 • INTRODUCTION 7 IS

B N

1 -2

56 -3

37 10

-2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Locard’s exchange principle Whenever two objects come into contact with one another, there is exchange of materials between them

8 CHAPTER 1

forensic science cases. McCrone’s exceptional communication skills made him a much-sought- after instructor, and he was responsible for educating thousands of forensic scientists throughout the world in the application of microscopic techniques. Dr. McCrone used microscopy, often in conjunction with other analytical methodologies, to examine evidence in thousands of criminal and civil cases throughout a long and illustrious career.

HANS GROSS (1847–1915) Gross wrote the first treatise describing the application of scientific disciplines to the field of criminal investigation in 1893. A public prosecutor and judge in Graz, Austria, Gross spent many years studying and developing principles of criminal investigation. In his classic book Handbuch für Untersuchungsrichter als System der Kriminalistik (later pub- lished in English under the title Criminal Investigation), he detailed the assistance that investiga- tors could expect from the fields of microscopy, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anthropometry, and fingerprinting. He later introduced the forensic journal Archiv für Kriminal Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, which still serves as a medium for reporting improved methods of scientific crime detection.

EDMOND LOCARD (1877–1966) Although Gross was a strong advocate of the use of the sci- entific method in criminal investigation, he did not make any specific technical contributions to this philosophy. Locard, a Frenchman, demonstrated how the principles enunciated by Gross could be incorporated within a workable crime laboratory. Locard’s formal education was in both medicine and law. In 1910, he persuaded the Lyons police department to give him two attic rooms and two assistants to start a police laboratory.

During Locard’s first years of work, the only available instruments were a microscope and a rudimentary spectrometer. However, his enthusiasm quickly overcame the technical and mone- tary deficiencies he encountered. From these modest beginnings, Locard’s research and accom- plishments became known throughout the world by forensic scientists and criminal investigators. Eventually he became the founder and director of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyons; this quickly developed into a leading international center for study and research in forensic science.

Locard believed that when a person comes in contact with an object or person, a cross- transfer of materials occurs (Locard’s exchange principle). Locard maintained that every criminal can be connected to a crime by dust particles carried from the crime scene. This concept was reinforced by a series of successful and well-publicized investigations. In one case, presented with counterfeit coins and the names of three suspects, Locard urged the police to bring the suspects’ clothing to his laboratory. On careful examination, he located small metallic particles in all the garments. Chemical analysis revealed that the particles and coins were composed of exactly the same metallic elements. Confronted with this evidence, the suspects were arrested and soon confessed to the crime. After World War I, Locard’s successes served as an impetus for the formation of police laboratories in Vienna, Berlin, Sweden, Finland, and Holland.

Crime Laboratories The most ambitious commitment to forensic science occurred in the United States with the sys- tematic development of national and state crime laboratories. This development greatly hastened the progress of forensic science.

Crime Labs in the United States In 1932, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the directorship of J. Edgar Hoover, organized a national laboratory that offered forensic services to all law enforcement agencies in the country. During its formative stages, agents consulted extensively with business executives, manufacturers, and scientists whose knowledge and experience were useful in guiding the new facility through its infancy. The FBI Laboratory is now the world’s largest forensic laboratory, performing more than one million examinations every year. Its accomplishments have earned it worldwide recognition, and its structure and organization have served as a model for forensic laboratories formed at the state and local levels in the United States as well as in other countries. Furthermore, the opening of the FBI’s Forensic Science Research and Training Center in 1981 gave the United States, for the first time, a facility dedicated to conducting research to develop

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

new and reliable scientific methods that can be applied to forensic science. This facility is also used to train crime laboratory personnel in the latest forensic science techniques and methods.

The oldest forensic laboratory in the United States is that of the Los Angeles Police Department, created in 1923 by August Vollmer, a police chief from Berkeley, California. In the 1930s, Vollmer headed the first U.S. university institute for criminology and criminalistics at the University of California at Berkeley. However, this institute lacked any official status in the university until 1948, when a school of criminology was formed. The famous criminalist Paul Kirk (see Figure 1–3) was selected to head its criminalistics department. Many graduates of this school have gone on to help develop forensic laboratories in other parts of the state and country.

California has numerous federal, state, county, and city crime laboratories, many of which op- erate independently. However, in 1972 the California Department of Justice embarked on an ambi- tious plan to create a network of state-operated crime laboratories.As a result, California has created a model system of integrated forensic laboratories consisting of regional and satellite facilities. An informal exchange of information and expertise is facilitated among California’s criminalist com- munity through a regional professional society, the California Association of Criminalists. This or- ganization was the forerunner of a number of regional organizations that have developed throughout the United States to foster cooperation among the nation’s growing community of criminalists.

International Crime Labs In contrast to the American system of independent local laboratories, Great Britain has developed a national system of regional laboratories under the direction of the government’s Home Office. England and Wales are serviced by six regional laboratories, including the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (established in 1935), which services London. In the early 1990s, the British Home Office reorganized the country’s forensic laboratories into the Forensic Science Service and in- stituted a system in which police agencies are charged a fee for services rendered by the labora- tory. The fees are based on “products,” or a set of examinations that are packaged together and designed to be suitable for particular types of physical evidence. The fee-for-service concept has encouraged the creation of a number of private laboratories that provide services to both police and criminal defense attorneys. One such organization, LGC in the United Kingdom, employs more than one thousand forensic scientists.

In Canada, forensic services are provided by three government-funded institutes: (1) six Royal Canadian Mounted Police regional laboratories, (2) the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto, and (3) the Institute of Legal Medicine and Police Science in Montreal. Altogether, more than a hundred countries throughout the world have at least one laboratory facility offering services in the field of forensic science.

INTRODUCTION 9

FIGURE 1–3 Paul Leland Kirk, 1902–1970. Courtesy Blackstone-Shelburne, N.Y.

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

10 CHAPTER 1

Organization of a Crime Laboratory The development of crime laboratories in the United States has been characterized by rapid growth accompanied by a lack of national and regional planning and coordination. At present, nearly four hundred public crime laboratories operate at various levels of government (federal, state, county, and municipal)—more than three times the number of crime laboratories operating in 1966.

The size and diversity of crime laboratories make it impossible to select any one model that best describes a typical crime laboratory. Although most of these facilities function as part of a police department, others operate under the direction of the prosecutor’s or district attorney’s office; some work with the laboratories of the medical examiner or coroner. Far fewer are affili- ated with universities or exist as independent agencies in government. Laboratory staff sizes range from one person to more than a hundred, and their services may be diverse or specialized, depending on the responsibilities of the agency that houses the laboratory.

The Growth of Crime Laboratories Crime laboratories have mostly been organized by agencies that either foresaw their potential application to criminal investigation or were pressed by the increasing demands of casework. Several reasons explain the unparalleled growth of crime laboratories during the past thirty-five years. Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s were responsible for greater police emphasis on securing scientifically evaluated evidence. The requirement to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights and their right of immediate access to counsel has all but eliminated confes- sions as a routine investigative tool. Successful prosecution of criminal cases requires a thorough and professional police investigation, frequently incorporating the skills of forensic science experts. Modern technology has provided forensic scientists with many new skills and techniques to meet the challenges accompanying their increased participation in the criminal justice system.

Coinciding with changing judicial requirements has been the staggering increase in crime rates in the United States over the past forty years. This factor alone would probably have accounted for the increased use of crime laboratory services by police agencies, but only a small percentage of police investigations generate evidence requiring scientific examination. There is, however, one im- portant exception to this observation: drug-related arrests. All illicit-drug seizures must be sent to a forensic laboratory for confirmatory chemical analysis before the case can be adjudicated. Since the mid-1960s, drug abuse has accelerated to nearly uncontrollable levels and has resulted in crime laboratories being inundated with drug specimens. Current estimates indicate that nearly half of all requests for examination of forensic evidence deal with abused drugs.

Future Challenges A more recent impetus leading to the growth and maturation of crime laboratories has been the advent of DNA profiling. Since the early 1990s, this technology has progressed to the point at which traces of blood, semen stains, hair, and saliva residues left behind on stamps and cups, as well as bite marks, have made possible the individualization or near-individualization of biolog- ical evidence. To meet the demands of DNA technology, crime labs have expanded staff and in many cases modernized their physical plants. The labor-intensive demands and sophisticated requirements of the technology have affected the structure of the forensic laboratory as has no other technology in the past fifty years. Likewise, DNA profiling has become the dominant factor in explaining how the general public perceives the workings and capabilities of the modern crime laboratory.

In coming years thousands of forensic scientists will be added to the rolls of both public and private forensic laboratories to process crime-scene evidence for DNA and to acquire DNA profiles, as mandated by state laws, from the hundreds of thousands of individuals con- victed of crimes. This endeavor has already added many new scientists to the field and will eventually more than double the number of scientists employed by forensic laboratories in the United States.

A major problem facing the forensic DNA community is the substantial backlog of unana- lyzed DNA samples from crime scenes. The number of unanalyzed casework DNA samples reported by state and national agencies is more than 57,000. The estimated number of untested convicted offender samples is over 500,000. In an attempt to eliminate the backlog of convicted

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

offender or arrestee samples to be analyzed and entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the federal government has initiated funding for in-house analysis of samples at the crime laboratory or outsourcing samples to private laboratories for analysis.

Beginning in 2008, California began collecting DNA samples from all people arrested on suspicion of a felony, not waiting until a person is convicted. The state’s database, with approxi- mately one million DNA profiles, is already the third largest in the world, behind those maintained by the United Kingdom and the FBI. The federal government plans to begin doing the same.

Types of Crime Laboratories Historically, a federal system of government, combined with a desire to retain local control, has produced a variety of independent laboratories in the United States, precluding the creation of a national system. Crime laboratories to a large extent mirror the fragmented law enforcement structure that exists on the national, state, and local levels.

FEDERAL CRIME LABORATORIES The federal government has no single law enforcement or investigative agency with unlimited jurisdiction. Four major federal crime laboratories have been created to help investigate and enforce criminal laws that extend beyond the jurisdictional bound- aries of state and local forces.

The FBI (Department of Justice) maintains the largest crime laboratory in the world. An ultramodern facility housing the FBI’s forensic science services is located in Quantico, Virginia (see Figure 1–4). Its expertise and technology support its broad investigative powers. The Drug Enforcement Administration laboratories (Department of Justice) analyze drugs seized in viola- tion of federal laws regulating the production, sale, and transportation of drugs. The laboratories of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Department of Justice) analyze alcoholic beverages and documents relating to alcohol and firearm excise tax law enforcement and examine weapons, explosive devices, and related evidence to enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service maintains laboratories concerned with criminal investigations relating to the postal service. Each of these federal facilities will offer its expertise to any local agency that requests assistance in relevant investigative matters.

STATE AND LOCAL CRIME LABORATORIES Most state governments maintain a crime laboratory to service state and local law enforcement agencies that do not have ready access to a laboratory. Some states, such as Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, and Florida, have developed a comprehensive statewide system of regional or satellite laboratories. These operate under the direction of a central facility and provide forensic services to most areas of the state. The concept of a regional laboratory operating as part of a statewide system has increased the accessibility of many local law enforcement agencies to a crime laboratory, while minimizing duplication of services and ensuring maximum interlaboratory cooperation through the sharing of expertise and equipment.

INTRODUCTION 11

FIGURE 1–4 (a) Exterior and (b) interior views of the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Virginia. Courtesy AP Wide World Photos

(a) (b)

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

12 CHAPTER 1

Local laboratories provide services to county and municipal agencies. Generally, these facil- ities operate independently of the state crime laboratory and are financed directly by local gov- ernment. However, as costs have risen, some counties have combined resources and created multicounty laboratories to service their jurisdictions. Many of the larger cities in the United States maintain their own crime laboratories, usually under the direction of the local police de- partment. Frequently, high population and high crime rates combine to make a municipal facility, such as that of New York City, the largest crime laboratory in the state.

Services of the Crime Laboratory Bearing in mind the independent development of crime laboratories in the United States, the wide variation in total services offered in different communities is not surprising. There are many rea- sons for this, including (1) variations in local laws, (2) the different capabilities and functions of the organization to which a laboratory is attached, and (3) budgetary and staffing limitations.

In recent years, many local crime laboratories have been created solely to process drug specimens. Often these facilities were staffed with few personnel and operated under limited budgets. Although many have expanded their forensic services, some still primarily perform drug analyses. However, even among crime laboratories providing services beyond drug identification, the diversity and quality of services rendered varies significantly. For the purposes of this text, I have taken the liberty of arbitrarily designating the following units as those that should constitute a “full-service” crime laboratory.

Basic Services Provided by Full-Service Crime Laboratories PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNIT The physical science unit applies principles and techniques of chem- istry, physics, and geology to the identification and comparison of crime-scene evidence. It is

staffed by criminalists who have the expertise to use chemical tests and modern analytical instrumentation to examine items as diverse as drugs, glass, paint, explosives, and soil. In a laboratory that has a staff large enough to permit spe- cialization, the responsibilities of this unit may be further subdivided into drug identification, soil and mineral analysis, and examination of a variety of trace physical evidence.

BIOLOGY UNIT The biology unit is staffed with biologists and biochemists who identify and perform DNA profiling on dried bloodstains and other body fluids, compare hairs and fibers, and identify and compare botanical materials such as wood and plants (see Figure 1–5).

FIREARMS UNIT The firearms unit examines firearms, discharged bullets, car- tridge cases, shotgun shells, and ammunition of all types. Garments and other objects are also examined to detect firearms discharge residues and to approxi- mate the distance from a target at which a weapon was fired. The basic princi- ples of firearms examination are also applied here to the comparison of marks made by tools (see Figure 1–6).

DOCUMENT EXAMINATION UNIT The document examination unit studies the handwriting and typewriting on questioned documents to ascertain authenticity and/or source. Related responsibilities include analyzing paper and ink and examining indented writings (the term usually applied to the partially visible depressions appearing on a sheet of paper underneath the one on which the visi- ble writing appears), obliterations, erasures, and burned or charred documents (see Figure 1–7).

PHOTOGRAPHY UNIT A complete photographic laboratory examines and records physical evidence. Its procedures may require the use of highly special- ized photographic techniques, such as digital imaging, infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray photography, to make invisible information visible to the naked eye. This unit also prepares photographic exhibits for courtroom presentation.

FIGURE 1–5 A forensic scientist performing DNA analysis. Courtesy Mauro Fermariello, Photo Researchers, Inc.

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

INTRODUCTION 13

Optional Services Provided by Full-Service Crime Laboratories TOXICOLOGY UNIT The toxicology group examines body fluids and organs to determine the presence or absence of drugs and poisons. Frequently, such functions are shared with or may be the sole responsibility of a separate laboratory facility placed under the direction of the medical examiner’s or coroner’s office.

In most jurisdictions, field instruments such as the Intoxilyzer are used to determine the al- coholic consumption of individuals. Often the toxicology section also trains operators and main- tains and services these instruments.

LATENT FINGERPRINT UNIT The latent fingerprint unit processes and examines evidence for latent fingerprints when they are submitted in conjunction with other laboratory examinations.

POLYGRAPH UNIT The polygraph, or lie detector, has come to be recognized as an essential tool of the criminal investigator rather than the forensic scientist. However, during the formative years of polygraph technology, many police agencies incorporated this unit into the laboratory’s ad- ministrative structure, where it sometimes remains today. In any case, its functions are handled by people trained in the techniques of criminal investigation and interrogation.

VOICEPRINT ANALYSIS UNIT In cases involving telephoned threats or tape-recorded mes- sages, investigators may require the skills of the voiceprint analysis unit to tie the voice to a par- ticular suspect. To this end, a good deal of casework has been performed with the sound spectrograph, an instrument that transforms speech into a visual display called a voiceprint. The validity of this technique as a means of personal identification rests on the premise that the sound patterns produced in speech are unique to the individual and that the voiceprint displays this uniqueness.

CRIME-SCENE INVESTIGATION UNIT The concept of incorporating crime-scene evidence collection into the total forensic science service is slowly gaining recognition in the United States. This unit dispatches specially trained personnel (civilian and/or police) to the crime scene to collect and preserve physical evidence that will later be processed at the crime laboratory.

Whatever the organizational structure of a forensic science laboratory may be, specialization must not impede the overall coordination of services demanded by today’s criminal investigator.

FIGURE 1–6 A forensic analyst examining a firearm. Courtesy Mediacolors, Alamy Images

WEBEXTRA 1.1 Take a Tour of a Forensic Laboratory www.mycrimekit.com

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Fingerprints may be detectable on paper using a variety of chemical developing techniques (pp. 403–404).

Cellophane tape was used to seal our envelopes containing the anthrax letters. The fitting together of the serrated ends of the tape strips confirmed that they were orn in succession from the same roll of tape (pp. 62–63)

DNA may be recovered from saliva residues on the back of a stamp (pp. 284–286). However, in this case, the stamp is printed onto the envelope.

Ink analysis may reveal a pen’s manufacturer (pp. 463–464).

Paper examination may identify a manufacturer. General appearance, watermarks, fiber analysis, and chemical analysis of pigments, additives, and fillers may reveal a paper's origin (p. 468).

Photocopier toner may reveal its manufacturer through chemical and physical properties (pp. 457–458).ndented writing may be deposited

on paper left underneath a sheet of paper being written upon. Electrostatic maging is used to visualize indented mpressions on paper (p. 462).

Handwriting examination reveals that block lettering is consistent with a single writer who wrote three other anthrax letters (pp. 452–457).

DNA may be recovered from saliva used to seal an envelope (pp. 284–286)

Trace evidence, such as hairs and fibers, may be present within the contents of the envelope.

FIGURE 1–7 An envelope containing anthrax spores along with an anonymous letter was sent to the office of Senator Tom Daschle shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A variety of forensic skills were used to examine the envelope and letter. Also, bar codes placed on the front and back of the envelope by mail-sorting machines contain address information and information about where the envelope was first processed. Courtesy Getty Images Inc. - Getty News

Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

INTRODUCTION 15

Laboratory administrators need to keep open the lines of communication among analysts (civilian and uniform), crime-scene investigators, and police personnel. Inevitably, forensic investigations require the skills of many individuals. One notoriously high-profile investigation illustrates this process—the search to uncover the source of the anthrax letters mailed shortly after September 11, 2001. Figure 1–7 shows one of the letters and illustrates the multitude of skills required in the investigation—skills possessed by forensic chemists and biologists, fingerprint examiners, and forensic document examiners.

Functions of the Forensic Scientist Although a forensic scientist relies primarily on scientific knowledge and skill in performing analy- ses in the laboratory, a good deal of the forensic scientists’s time is spent in the courtroom, where the ultimate significance of the evidence is determined. The forensic scientist must not only analyze physical evidence but also persuade a jury to accept the conclusions derived from that analysis.

Analysis of Physical Evidence First and foremost, the forensic scientist must be skilled in applying the principles and techniques of the physical and natural sciences to analyze the many types of physical evidence that may be recovered during a criminal investigation. Of the three major avenues available to police investi- gators for assistance in solving a crime—confessions, eyewitness accounts by victims or wit- nesses, and the evaluation of physical evidence retrieved from the crime scene—only physical evidence is free of inherent error or bias.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE Criminal cases are replete with examples of indi- viduals who were incorrectly charged with and convicted of committing a crime because of faulty memories or lapses in judgment. For example, investigators may be led astray during their preliminary evaluation of the events and circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime. These errors may be compounded by misleading eyewitness statements and inappropriate con- fessions. These same concerns don’t apply to physical evidence.

What about physical evidence allows investigators to sort out facts as they are and not what one wishes they were? The hallmark of physical evidence is that it must undergo scientific in- quiry. Science derives its integrity from adherence to strict guidelines that ensure the careful and systematic collection, organization, and analysis of information—a process known as the scientific method. The underlying principles of the scientific method provide a safety net to ensure that the outcome of an investigation is not tainted by human emotion or compromised by distorting, belittling, or ignoring contrary evidence.

The scientific method begins by formulating a question worthy of investigation, such as who committed a particular crime. The investigator next formulates a hypothesis, a reasonable explanation proposed to answer the question. What follows is the basic foundation of scientific inquiry—the testing of the hypothesis through experimentation. The testing process must be thor- ough and recognized by other scientists as valid. Scientists and investigators must accept the experimental findings even when they wish they were different. Finally, when the hypothesis is validated by experimentation, it becomes suitable as scientific evidence, appropriate for use in a criminal investigation and ultimately available for admission in a court of law.

DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE In rejecting the scientific validity of the lie detector (polygraph), the District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1923 set forth what has since become a standard guideline for determining the judicial admissibility of scientific examinations. In Frye v. United States,2 the court stated the following:

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 the courts will go a long way in admit- ting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the

2 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

scientific method A process that uses strict guidelines to ensure careful and systematic collection, organization, and analysis of information

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

16 CHAPTER 1

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 meet the Frye standard, the court must decide whether the questioned procedure, tech- nique, or principle is “generally accepted” by a meaningful segment of the relevant scientific community. In practice, this approach required the proponent of a scientific test to present to the court a collection of experts who could testify that the scientific issue before the court is gener- ally accepted by the relevant members of the scientific community. Furthermore, in determining whether a novel technique meets criteria associated with “general acceptance,” courts have fre- quently taken note of books and papers written on the subject, as well as prior judicial decisions relating to the reliability and general acceptance of the technique. In recent years this approach has engendered a great deal of debate as to whether it is sufficiently flexible to deal with new and novel scientific issues that may not have gained widespread support within the scientific community.

OTHER STANDARDS OF ADMISSIBILITY As an alternative to the Frye standard, some courts came to believe that the Federal Rules of Evidence espoused a more flexible standard that did not rely on general acceptance as an absolute prerequisite for admitting scientific evidence. Part of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of all evidence, including expert testimony, in federal courts, and many states have adopted codes similar to those of the Federal Rules. Specifically, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the admissibility of expert testimony:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to under- stand 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 tes- timony 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 landmark ruling in the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,3 the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that “general acceptance,” or the Frye standard, is not an absolute prerequisite to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. According to the Court, the Rules of Evidence—especially Rule 702—assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the case. Although this ruling applies only to federal courts, many state courts are expected to use this decision as a guideline in setting standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

JUDGING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE What the Court advocates in Daubert is that trial judges as- sume the ultimate responsibility for acting as a “gatekeeper” in judging the admissibility and re- liability of scientific evidence presented in their courts (see Figure 1–8). The Court offered some guidelines as to how a judge can gauge the veracity of scientific evidence, emphasizing that the inquiry should be flexible. Suggested areas of inquiry include the following:

1. Whether the scientific technique or theory can be (and has been) tested 2. Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication 3. The technique’s potential rate of error 4. Existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation 5. Whether the scientific theory or method has attracted widespread acceptance within a rele-

vant scientific community

Some legal practitioners have expressed concern that abandoning Frye’s general-acceptance test will result in the introduction of absurd and irrational pseudoscientific claims in the court- room. The Supreme Court rejected these concerns:

In this regard the respondent seems to us to be overly pessimistic about the capabilities of the jury and of the adversary system generally. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

3 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

INTRODUCTION 17

In a 1999 decision, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,4 the Court unanimously ruled that the “gatekeeping” role of the trial judge applied not only to scientific testimony, but to all expert testimony:

We conclude that Daubert’s general holding—setting forth the trial judge’s general “gate- keeping” obligation—applies not only to testimony based on “scientific” knowledge, but also to testimony based on “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge. . . . We also conclude that a trial court may consider one or more of the more specific factors that Daubert mentioned when doing so will help determine that testimony’s reliability. But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is “flexible,” and Daubert’s list of spe- cific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts in every case.

A leading case that exemplifies the type of flexibility and wide discretion that the Daubert ruling apparently gives trial judges in matters of scientific inquiry is Coppolino v. State.5 Here a medical examiner testified to his finding that the victim had died of an overdose of a drug known as succinylcholine chloride. This drug had never before been detected in the human body. The medical examiner’s findings were dependent on a toxicological report that identified an abnor- mally high concentration of succinic acid, a breakdown product of the drug, in the victim’s body. The defense argued that this test for the presence of succinylcholine chloride was new and the absence of corroborative experimental data by other scientists meant that it had not yet gained general acceptance in the toxicology profession. The court, in rejecting this argument, recognized the necessity for devising new scientific tests to solve the special problems that are continually arising in the forensic laboratory. It emphasized, however, that although these tests may be new and unique, they are admissible only if they are based on scientifically valid principles and tech- niques: “The tests by which the medical examiner sought to determine whether death was caused by succinylcholine chloride were novel and devised specifically for this case. This does not ren- der the evidence inadmissible. Society need not tolerate homicide until there develops a body of medical literature about some particular lethal agent.”

FIGURE 1–8 Sketch of a U.S. Supreme Court hearing. © Art Lien, Court Artist

4 526 U.S. 137 (1999). 5 223 So. 2d 68 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968), app. dismissed, 234 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 (1970).

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-3 37

10 -2

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

18 CHAPTER 1

expert witness An individual whom the court determines to possess knowledge relevant to the trial that is not expected of the average layperson

Dr. Coppolino’s Deadly House Calls A frantic late-night telephone call to Dr. Juliette Karow brought her to the Longport Key, Florida, home of Drs. Carl and Carmela Coppolino. Carl had called for Dr. Karow’s help be- cause he believed Carmela was dying. He said she had com- plained of chest pains earlier in the evening and he was certain she had suffered a heart attack. Dr. Karow arrived to find Carmela beyond help.

Although Dr. Karow felt that the scene in the room appeared staged, and her own observations of Carmela’s body did not support Carl’s claim of heart trouble, she agreed to sign 32-year-old Carmela’s death certificate. Dr. Karow cited “coro- nary occlusion” as the cause of death but reported the death to the local police department. The investigating officer was sat- isfied that Dr. Karow had correctly listed the cause of death, so he did not apply the law that required that an autopsy be performed. The medical examiner could not order an autopsy without a request from the police or the district attorney, which was not forthcoming. Thus, Carmela Coppolino’s body, unex- amined by anyone, was buried in her family’s plot in her home state of New Jersey.

A little more than a month later, Carl married a moneyed socialite, Mary Gibson. News of Carl’s marriage infuriated Mar- jorie Farber, a former New Jersey neighbor of Dr. Coppolino who had been having an affair with the good doctor. Soon Marjorie had an interesting story to recount to investigators. Her husband’s death two years before, although ruled to be from nat- ural causes, had actually been murder! Carl, an anesthesiologist, had given Marjorie a syringe containing some medication and told her to inject her husband, William, while he was sleeping. Ultimately, Marjorie claimed, she was unable to inject the full dose and called Carl, who finished the job by suffocating William with a pillow.

In a cruel and ironic twist, Carl called his wife, Carmela, to sign William Farber’s death certificate. She listed the cause of death, at Carl’s insistence, as coronary artery disease. This type of death is common, especially in men in their fifties. Such deaths are rarely questioned, and the Department of Health accepted the certificate without any inquiry.

Marjorie Farber’s astonishing story was supported in part by Carl’s recent increase in his wife’s life insurance. Carmela’s $65,000 policy, along with his new wife’s fortune, would keep Dr. Coppolino in high society for the rest of his life. Based on this information, authorities in New Jersey and Florida now obtained exhumation orders for both William Farber and Carmela Coppolino. After examination of both bodies, Dr. Coppolino was charged with the murders of William and Carmela.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ca

se s

tu d

y

Provision of Expert Testimony Because their work product may ultimately be a factor in determining a person’s guilt or innocence, forensic scientists may be required to testify with respect to their methods and conclusions at a trial or hearing. Trial courts have broad discretion in accepting an individual as an expert witness on any particular subject. Generally, if a witness can establish to the satisfaction of a trial judge that he

Officials decided to try Dr. Coppolino first in New Jersey for the murder of William Farber. Coppolino was represented by the famous defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. The Farber autopsy did not reveal any evidence of poisoning, but seemed to show strong evidence of strangulation. The absence of toxicological findings left the jury to deliberate the conflicting medical expert testimony versus the sensational story told by a scorned and embittered woman. In the end, Bailey secured an acquittal for his client.

The Florida trial presented another chance to bring Carl Coppolino to justice. Florida officials called on the experienced New York City medical examiner Dr. Milton Halpern and his colleague, toxicologist Dr. Charles Umberger, to determine how Carl Coppolino had killed his wife. Recalling Dr. Coppolino’s career as an anesthesiologist, Halpern theorized that Coppolino had exploited his access to the many potent drugs used during surgery to commit these murders, specifically an injectable paralytic agent called succinylcholine chloride.

After having Carmela’s body exhumed, Halpern examined her body with a magnifying glass in search of an injection site. He found that Carmela had been injected in her left buttock shortly before her death. Dr. Umberger’s mission as the toxicol- ogist in this case was to prove the administration of succinyl- choline chloride by chemical analysis of Carmela’s tissues.

This presented a serious problem because succinylcholine was purported to be untraceable in human tissue. The drug breaks down in the body to succinic acid and choline, both of which are naturally occurring chemicals in the human body. The chemical method necessary to make this determination did not exist at the time of the murder.

Ultimately, Dr. Umberger developed a completely novel procedure for detecting succinylcholine chloride. He isolated elevated levels of succinic acid in Carmela’s brain, which proved that she had received a large dose of the paralytic drug shortly before her death. This evidence, along with the finding of the same drug residues in the injection site on her buttock, was presented in the Florida murder trial of Carl Coppolino, who was convicted of second-degree murder.

On appeal, the defense raised an interesting point of law. Can a defendant be convicted of murder based on a series of tests that were specifically devised for this case? Tests that indirectly showed that Carmela had been injected with suc- cinylcholine chloride had never before been used in a criminal trial. The court ruled that the novelty of a scientific method does not preclude its significance to a criminal prosecution. Just be- cause an otherwise valid method was developed specifically for this trial and had not yet been proven in court did not mean that the murderer should be allowed to get away with the perfect crime. The conviction of Dr. Coppolino was upheld.

IS B

N 1-256-36593-9

, Tenth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

INTRODUCTION 19

or she possesses a particular skill or has knowledge in a trade or profession that will aid the court in determining the truth of the matter at issue, that individual will be accepted as an expert witness. Depending on the subject area in question, the court will usually consider knowledge acquired through experience, training, education, or a combination sufficient grounds for quali- fication as an expert witness.

DETERMINING COMPETENCE In court, the qualifying questions that counsel asks the expert are often directed toward demonstrating the witness’s ability and competence pertaining to the matter at hand. Competency may be established by having him or her cite educational degrees, participation in special courses, membership in professional societies, and any professional arti- cles or books published. Also important is the number of years of occupational experience the witness has in areas related to the matter before the court.

Unfortunately, few schools confer degrees in forensic science. Most chemists, biologists, geologists, and physicists prepare themselves for careers in forensic science by combining train- ing under an experienced examiner with independent study. Of course, formal education provides the scientist with a firm foundation for learning and understanding the principles and techniques of forensic science. Nevertheless, for the most part, courts must rely on training and years of experience as a measurement of the knowledge and ability of the expert.