Open Access Research Article
ROLE OF A PROSECUTION COUNSEL IN TRIALS WITH REFERENCE TO FORENSIC SCIENCE
Published Paper
Article Details
ROLE
OF A PROSECUTION COUNSEL IN TRIALS WITH REFERENCE TO FORENSIC SCIENCE
AUTHORED BY -
GURMEHAR RANDHAWA
BBA
LLB (2020-25)
Email
id – gurmeharraandhawa10@gmail.com
Symbiosis
Law School, Hyderabad
In
June 2023
Table of contents
CHAPTER – I
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………
2. Research
Objectives…………………………………………………
3. Research
Methodology……………………...………………………
4. Research
question…………………………...………………………
5. Literature
review………………………….…………………………
CHAPTER – II
1. Role of prosecution in trials
…………………………….………
2. Utilizing forensic evidence while
building a case in the eyes of the prosecution counsel………………………………………….
3. Understanding the reliability and
validity of evidences based on forensic science………………………………………………….
4. Challenges faced by prosecution
counsel when using forensic evidence………………………………………………………
5. Ensuring that the forensic evidence is
reliable and admissible……………………………………………………
6. Role of expert witnesses play in
trials involving forensic evidence……………………………………………………
7. Determining the role of prosecution
with regards to forensic evidence in the outcome of a trial……………………………
CHAPTER – III
1. Conclusion…………………………………………………………
CHAPTER -I
Introduction
The
criminal justice system is divided into four primary components. The
prosecution, the court, the investigating unit, and the correctional wing. It
is the prosecutor's job as a court officer to provide a true image to the
Court. The fundamental job of the prosecutor is to assist the court in
discovering the truth and administering justice to the people and the
accused in line with the law and impartial norms. The major purpose of the
Prosecution wing is to prosecute cases in court. The author would thereby study
the role of the prosecution counsel in trials utilizing forensic scientific
evidence, which involves choosing, evaluating, and presenting the evidence in a
clear and persuasive manner to demonstrate the guilt of the accused. The
ability of the prosecution counsel to successfully present the forensic
evidence might be important to obtaining a conviction.
A prosecution
counsel's function in forensic science cases is to submit evidence to the court
that supports the prosecution's case. Forensic science is an important part of many
criminal prosecutions, and prosecutors frequently rely on it to establish their
argument past any reasonable doubt. Prosecutors may collaborate closely
with forensic scientists and experts to collect and analyze evidence, and
they may also summon expert witnesses to testify on forensic issues.
In the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai[1],
the Bombay High Court held that the prosecution counsel has a duty to ensure
that the evidence produced in court is reliable and can be accepted as proof of
the facts in issue, including forensic evidence. They must follow established
protocols for handling and presenting forensic evidence, as well as be aware of
any potential objections to the evidence's admissibility.
Research objectives
The following are some research
objectives for the concerned topic -
1. To examine how forensic science
may be utilised as evidence in criminal cases, as well as the problems that
prosecutors have in properly presenting this evidence.
2. To examine how the use of forensic
scientific evidence might affect the result of criminal cases, as well as to
identify factors that could impact the perceived credibility of this
evidence.
3. To evaluate the role of scientific
experts and prosecutors in the presenting of forensic science evidence in
the trials of criminal cases
4. Identifying practices when
employing forensic scientific evidence in criminal cases, as well as developing
guidelines for prosecution counsel to ensure that this evidence is presented
fairly and accurately.
5. To assess the efficacy of present
legislative and regulatory frameworks for the use of forensic scientific
evidence in trials, as well as to suggest possible areas for change or
improvement.
6. To carry on a case study on Keith
Harward’s and Harold Shipman’s case
Research Methodology
The author attempted to include
doctrinal research methods in a descriptive manner and performed this study
using secondary sources such as numerous judgments, publications, and
provisions from relevant acts and legislatures. Numerous web sources, including
SCC, Manupatra, Hein Online, and Jstor, were used.
Research questions
1. How does a prosecution
counsel use forensic evidence to develop a case in a criminal trial?
2. What are the difficulties that
prosecution counsel faces when using forensic evidence during a court
proceeding, and how may these difficulties be overcome?
3. How can the prosecutor
guarantee that the evidence so provided are trustworthy and
admissible?
4. How important is forensic evidence
in influencing the outcome of a trial, and how does the prosecution counsel
balance it with other types of evidence?
5. What role do expert witnesses play
in cases involving forensic science?
Literature review
1.
Role of forensic science in criminal investigation: Admissibility in
Indian legal system and future[2] - The research assisted the author
in analysing the importance of forensic science in criminal investigation as
well as its role in maintaining control over the law and order. This research
also sheds insight on how forensic science serves as a link amid medicine and
law.
2.
Scientific Experts: Making Their Testimony More Reliable by Marilee M
Kapsa and Carl B Meyer[3] - The article discusses evidentiary
standards in order to make expert testimony more trustworthy in the United
States Supreme Court throughout the 1990s. This essay investigates some of the
underlying challenges and speculates on whether the endeavour will be
successful.
3.
Reliability and validity of forensic science evidence by Hal S Stern and
David Kaye[4] - Using Keith Harward's case study,
the article evaluates the validity and trustworthiness of forensic science in
the investigation of evidence. It shown that when scientific evidence is
assessed utilising forensic sciences, it may be extremely valuable to
investigators.
4.
The role of forensic science in the trial of Harold Shipman by T.H.
Henriques [5] -
The essay gave a case study of Harold Shipman's trial in order to appreciate
the assessment of forensic science when investigating the prosecution's
evidence.
5.
Towards coherent co-presentation of expert evidences in criminal trials:
Experiences of communication between forensic scientists and legal
practitioners by Loene Howes[6] - The goal of this article is to
report on research of lawyers and expert perspectives on expert evidence
transmission in major cases. This article begins by describing forensic science
and communicating about it as a endeavor before diving into some of the
elements that influence forensic science communication success. The outcomes of
the conclusion so drawn and their implications for improving cross-disciplinary
tactics are then examined. It reveals the various agreement between lawyers and
experts, meaning that they may be used to promote mutual agreements and
cross-disciplinary tactics.
CHAPTER – II
Role of prosecution counsel in trials
In forensic science cases, the
Prosecution Counsel's responsibility is to offer evidence that supports the
prosecution's case and refutes the defence’s claims. Forensic evidence is an
important part of many criminal prosecutions, and the prosecution counsel is
responsible for ensuring that the evidence is presented to the jury accurately
and convincingly.
To be effective in this function, the
prosecution counsel must comprehend the scientific concepts behind forensic
evidence and be able to express those ideas properly to the jury. They must
also collaborate closely with forensic specialists to gain a comprehensive
knowledge of the evidence and how it might be utilized to assist the
prosecution's case. Prosecutors must also be able to foresee and respond to any
objections to the admissibility or reliability of forensic evidence. This might
involve having pre-trial hearings to assess the admissibility of evidence or
cross-examining defence experts who may call the evidence's veracity or
reliability into doubt. Ultimately, the prosecution counsel's objective is to
employ forensic evidence to develop a convincing case that convinces the jury
of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution counsel can
play a vital role in ensuring that justice is served in criminal cases by
working closely with forensic specialists and employing their knowledge of the
science underlying the evidence. Some of the specialised tasks of a prosecution
attorney in forensic science proceedings may include:
1.
Forensic evidence collection: The prosecution's counsel may collaborate with forensic
experts to collect evidence such as DNA samples, fingerprints, or bloodstains.
2.
Forensic evidence analysis: The prosecution counsel may also collaborate with forensic scientists
to evaluate and explain the evidence acquired.
3.
Presenting forensic evidence in court: Prosecutors must present forensic evidence in court
in a straightforward and persuasive way.
This might include summoning expert
witnesses to testify about the findings of forensic analyses.
4.
Cross-examination of defence expert witnesses: The prosecution may also
cross-examine defence expert witnesses to contest their conclusions or
interpretations of the forensic evidence. The Supreme Court declared in Pritam
Singh Vs The State[7]
that the prosecution counsel has a responsibility to cross-examine the defence
witnesses, including expert witnesses, in order to extract the truth and ensure
that the facts are presented in a clear and unambiguous way.
Forensic
evidences are evidences based on forensic fundamental sciences such as
chemistry, engineering, or biology for explosive detection, structure design
studies, and DNA identification or matching. A forensic scientist is a
technical expert that may provide evidence analysis, witness testimony on
judgment results, technology assistance, and even building up his or her field.
·
DNA -
One of the most powerful pieces of forensic evidence accessible today is DNA
extracted from biological specimens retrieved at a crime scene. The forensic
analyst must determine if a suspect's DNA profile fits the DNA profile received
from the crime scene segments while examining this type of evidence. They must
next examine the importance of this agreement. In Vasu v. Santha,[8]
The court established guidelines for DNA testing and its admissibility in
proving the alleged fact. The court should consider the implications of
ordering DNA testing on the child and mother in circumstances governed by
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act[9].
It was decided that no one should be compelled to give blood specimen for DNA
testing, and that no negative consequences should be imposed for such refusal.
•Trace evidence-A trace evidence is a piece or sample of a larger
object that was left behind after the crime. This type of evidence includes
glass fragments from a smashed window, human hair, and fibres from clothing or
carpet. The purpose here is to determine if a trace evidence sample taken at
the crime scene matches a sample obtained from a suspect (or maybe from an
object in the suspect's possession).
•Pattern evidence-Pattern evidence is evidence left at a crime
scene as a result of a person's or item's impression. The forensic examiner
must determine if the pattern of an analogous sample acquired from the suspect
or an object related with the suspect matches the pattern of the imprint found
at the crime scene. Pattern evidence includes fingerprints, shoeprints,
documents/handwriting, toolmarks, and weapon imprints.
• Digital evidence - In criminal and civil investigations,
digital technology is becoming increasingly significant. Digital evidence is
any information received from a device engaged in an inquiry. Images or texts
discovered on a suspect's smartphone are examples. Because of the great range
of evidence types that may be found on digital devices, digital evidence can be
difficult to examine.
The prosecutor may employ forensic evidence in the following ways:
• Identifying
the perpetrator: Forensic evidence can be utilized to determine the
identity of a crime's perpetrator. For example, DNA evidence discovered at a
crime scene can be compared to the DNA of a suspect to determine whether or not
they were present at the scene.
• Creating
a chronology of events: Forensic evidence may be utilized to create
a timeline of events preceding and during the commission of a crime. Analysis
of blood splatter patterns, for example, can aid in determining the sequence of
events in a violent crime.
• Determining
the cause of death: In circumstances when the person has been killed,
forensic evidence can be utilized to ascertain the cause of death. A
pathologist, for example, may utilize forensic evidence to establish whether
the subject died as a result of a gunshot wound, a knife wound, or another
cause.
•
Establishing motivation: Forensic evidence can be utilised to back up
a prosecutor's motive argument. A series of financial transactions, for
example, might be used to show that the defendant had a financial incentive for
committing a crime.
• Countering
the defense's case: To contradict the defense's argument, forensic evidence
might be employed. For example, forensic evidence like as DNA or fingerprint
analysis may be used to dispute the defense's assertion that the defendant was
not present at the scene of the crime.
To prove
the identify of the offender, establish the sequence of events, ascertain the
cause of death, demonstrate motive, and rebut the defense's argument, the
prosecution's counsel can employ forensic evidence. t is crucial to emphasise,
however, that forensic evidence is only one type of evidence that may be
produced in a criminal prosecution, and the judge and jury must determine how
much weight to give to each piece of evidence given.
Understanding the reliability and validity of evidences based on forensic
science
The reliability and validity of such
evidence that is based on forensic science can be understood profoundly by
understanding the case of Keith Harward[10],
Keith Harward, a US sailor, was accused in 1983 of trespassing into a
married couple's home near the port in Newport News, Virginia, murdering the
husband with a crowbar, and raping the wife mercilessly. The legs of the woman
were additionally bitten, which became important in the later stage of the
investigation. After the lady's claim that the assailant was dressed in a
sailor's uniform, dentists examined the dental records and teeth of the
personnel of the aircraft carrier docked near the couple's home. Harward was
ruled out as the source of the markings by this dental investigation. Harward
was listed as a suspect in the murder and rape months later after the wife
accused him of biting her during an argument.
The police gave American Board of
Forensic Odontology qualified dentists wax imprints and dental moulds of
Harvard's teeth. He was the source of the bite marks, they reasoned. Dr. Lowell
Levine, a forensic dental specialist, testified that there was a "very
high degree of chance" that someone else's teeth would have all of these
features, but that it was a "practical impossibility." In order to
get postconviction relief for Harward, Genetic evidence from the 1982 rape kit
was analyzed in 2015. It discovered no traces of Harward's DNA. In reality, the
sperm was traced back to another man on the same ship. The person had already
died in prison while serving time for a variety of other crimes committed in
the aftermath of the 1982 rape and murder. In 2016, the Virginia Supreme Court
declared Harward innocent. Keith Harward, 60, was freed from a Virginia jail
after spending 33 years.
There is no question that forensic
science plays a vital role in assisting the justice system in the resolution of
challenging criminal cases by employing a variety of scientific approaches that
are outside the authority of judges. For trial judges, the most challenging
challenge is determining the trustworthiness of scientific evidence. Trial
judges will invariably be the major defenders of the scientific evidence
offered to show guilt. When it comes to forensic evidence, the "gatekeeper
duty" entrusted to trial judges may find its most essential function in
verifying that presented evidence fulfills fundamental requirements of
originality, appropriateness, and validity in the specific application of a
scientific principle, rather than judging the dependability or universal
acceptance of a new scientific theory. In some cases, deficiencies in a single
application may be deemed more relevant than competence in criminal
prosecution. It is widely held that scientific proof is scant. This, however,
may not be the case. Scientific evidence is preferred to oral evidence since it
is objective, verifiable, unbiased, and verified. 13 The provided evidence, like
other forensic science evidence, may nonetheless be contaminated as a
consequence of errors or contamination in its acquisition, testing, or
interpretation. As test technology and procedures advance, human mistakes may
provide the most serious evidentiary hurdles for trial judges. Additionally, in
State of Kerala v. Kunjan Pillai, the Kerala High Court declared
that it is the prosecution counsel's responsibility to ensure that the
scientific evidence is appropriately comprehended and accepted by the court and
that expert testimony is used to help the court in reaching a just decision.
The notion that scientific evidence is weak evidence arose as a result of poor
handling of scientific data throughout its early phases of development.
Furthermore, the so-called experts who supplied the material in the early days
lacked competency. The great majority of them were little more than
self-proclaimed specialists.
Challenges faced by prosecution
counsel when using forensic evidence
In a criminal trial, forensic
evidence may be extremely useful in assisting the prosecution in establishing
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, when employing forensic evidence in a
trial, the prosecution counsel may confront a number of difficulties. Among
these difficulties are:
• Evidence complexity:
Forensic evidence can be very technical and sophisticated, making it difficult
for a jury to grasp. This might lead to evidentiary misunderstanding and
misinterpretation.
• Evidence contamination: If
adequate protocols are not followed during collection, preservation, and
analysis, forensic evidence can be readily tainted. This can lead to inaccurate
results or conclusions.
• Bias and error: During
analysis, forensic analysts may be biassed or make errors, which can impair the
credibility of the evidence.
• Admissibility of evidence: The
defense may contest the admission of forensic evidence if they claim it was
obtained unlawfully or does not meet scientific evidence standards.
To overcome these obstacles, the
prosecutor might take many methods, including:
• Clear and straightforward
presentation of evidence: The prosecution might engage specialists to
explain the forensic evidence to the jury in an understandable manner. •
Ensuring proper evidence collection, preservation, and analysis: To prevent
contamination, the prosecution counsel can ensure that proper protocols are
followed during the collection, preservation, and analysis of forensic
evidence.
• Conducting an independent review: Prosecutors can have the forensic
evidence reviewed by outside experts to ensure that there are no errors or
biases in the analysis.
• Proving the evidence's
reliability: The prosecution counsel can demonstrate the forensic
evidence's credibility by giving proof of the methodology utilized and the
credentials of the analyst who did the analysis.
• Handling admissibility
objections: The prosecution counsel can address any challenges to the
admission of forensic evidence by showing that the evidence was obtained
legitimately and fulfills scientific evidence standards.
It is the job of the prosecution
counsel to ensure that the forensic evidence produced in a trial is credible
and admissible. To do this, the prosecutor can take many methods, including:
• Determine the possible value of
relevant forensic evidence: The prosecution counsel should evaluate the
potential value of relevant forensic evidence in showing guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
• Legally obtain the forensic
evidence: The prosecution must ensure that the forensic evidence was
collected legally and does not violate any laws or the defendant's
constitutional rights.
• Create a chain of custody: The prosecution should create a
chain of custody to demonstrate that the forensic evidence was properly
gathered, kept, and processed without tampering.
• Assure adequate evidence
handling and preservation: Prosecutors should ensure that forensic evidence
is handled and kept correctly to avoid contamination or degradation.
• Have the evidence reviewed by
experienced specialists: The prosecution should have the forensic evidence
analysed by qualified experts who have the requisite expertise and experience.
• Verify that the evidence
satisfies scientific criteria: Prosecutors should make certain that the
forensic evidence fulfils scientific standards for dependability and accuracy.
• Handle any admissibility issues:
The prosecution should be prepared to answer any defence objections to the
admission of forensic evidence. This may entail proving that the evidence was
collected legally, that it is relevant to the case, and that it fulfils
scientific evidence standards.
Following these processes allows the
prosecution counsel to guarantee that the forensic evidence given in a trial is
credible and admissible, which can aid in establishing guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Role of expert witnesses play in trials involving forensic evidence
When the Court must develop a
judgment on a point of foreign law, science, or art, or on the identification
of handwriting or finger imprints, the opinions of people exceptionally trained
in such foreign law, science, or art, or on the identity of handwriting or
finger impressions, are relevant facts. These people are known as experts.
It goes on to say that an 'Expert' is
someone who has special knowledge, skill, or experience in any of the following
areas:
• Foreign law, • Science, • Art, •
Handwriting, or • Fingerprint
There are two crucial requirements
that must be met in order to evaluate expert testimony for Admitting an Expert
Opinion:
• That the topic requires expert
testimony; and
• That the witness in question is
indeed an expert.
An expert's judgment must be corroborative
to the facts and circumstances of the given situation. If the viewpoint
contradicts unimpeachable eyewitness or documentary proof, it loses the
advantage over direct evidence.
Further in Sri Chand Batra vs.
State of U.P.[12],
When an Excise Inspector searched a liquor store, he discovered drums of
liquor. The Excise Inspector discovered that the liquid was illegal alcohol
after completing a smell test on samples of spirits obtained from the drums
housed within the establishment. He also used litmus paper, a hydrometer, and a
thermometer to test the contents of the drums to ascertain the strength and
composition of the liquid under composition. After such observations, he
testified that the liquor store was involved in the sale of illicit liquor and
produced a full report on the subject.
The question here was whether the
Excise Inspector could be regarded an expert whose judgement on the nature of
the liquid discovered was admissible as opinion evidence under Section 45 of
the Evidence Act. The Court ruled in this case that the Excise Inspector, who
had deposed at the commencement of his testimony, had put in 21 years of duty
as an Excise Inspector and had tested millions of samples of alcohol and
illegal alcohol. Furthermore, he had used every feasible method to analyse the
samples of alcohol available at the time, which were evident tests of his logic
and prudence. As a result, he qualifies as an expert witness.
A forensic expert witness is a
witness who testifies in court regarding forensic science. They offer specific
knowledge and skills to help the court understand difficult scientific and
technical evidence, and their testimony can be convincing in assisting the jury
in reaching a decision. Expert witnesses may be relied upon in forensic evidence
proceedings to give analysis, interpretation, or explanation of the evidence. A
forensic scientist, for example, may be relied upon to analyze Genetic
evidence, or a ballistics expert may be called upon to explain the meaning of
gunshot residue discovered at the site of a crime.
Prosecutors work closely with expert
witnesses to ensure that their testimony is clear, accurate, and pertinent to
the case. This may include examining studies or conclusions, preparing
questions for testimony, and collaborating with the expert witness to provide
visual aids or other materials to support their evidence. The prosecution may
also call into question the testimony of expert witnesses called by the
defense. This might include cross-examining the expert witness to identify
discrepancies or deficiencies in their analysis or providing information from
other experts that contradict the defense's expert witness' testimony. It is
crucial to recognize that expert witness evidence is not always decisive, and
their judgments may be challenged or disagreed with by other experts. The
prosecution must offer a balanced case that combines several sources of
evidence and addresses any potential flaws or contradictions in expert witness
testimony. Generally, the prosecution works closely with expert witnesses to
ensure that their testimony is accurate, dependable, and consistent with the
other evidence in the case. The prosecution counsel can make a compelling and
persuasive case to the jury by collaborating with expert witnesses.
Forensic evidence can be very
important in determining the outcome of a trial, especially when there is
physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime. The prosecution can
utilize forensic evidence to build a compelling case against the defendant and
show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is crucial to emphasize, however, that
forensic evidence is not always conclusive, and its relevance may vary depending
on the facts of the case. In some circumstances, forensic evidence is the sole
evidence tying the defendant to the crime, and in others, it is one of the
multiple types of evidence provided. To present a full and persuasive case to
the jury, the prosecution counsel must balance forensic evidence with other
types of evidence. Witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and other types
of physical evidence, such as fingerprints or Genetic evidence, may also be
considered. In addition, the prosecution counsel must verify that the forensic
evidence is consistent with the other evidence produced in the case. For
example, if a witness delivers testimony that contradicts the forensic
evidence, the prosecution counsel may be required to address and explain this discrepancy.
Finally, the weight accorded to
forensic evidence in a trial will be determined by the facts of the case and
the strength of the evidence provided. The prosecution must offer a balanced
case that incorporates all relevant evidence and emphasizes the importance of
forensic evidence in the context of the case.
CHAPTER - III
Conclusion and suggestions
This study sought to understand the
function of prosecution attorneys and their viewpoints on the effectiveness of
forensic science in the criminal justice system. It emphasised the
importance of forensic evidence as a form of proof in criminal cases, as well
as the prosecutor's duty to gather, examine, and present such evidence in court
as well as its acceptability and trustworthiness. A sufficient pre-trial
assessment of the presentation's subject matter and structure is required for
such co-presentation. Concern for the jury, accountability for preparation, and
the common disciplinary standard of coherence may serve as a bridge to better
cross-disciplinary understanding between forensic scientists and legal
practitioners. Multidisciplinary education is essential, and cross-disciplinary
contact may be recognised and rewarded as part of forensic science and criminal
law professional growth.
[1]
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai, 2003 Latest Caselaw 205 SC, (India)
[2] Gowsia
Farooq Khan & Sheeba Ahad, Role of Forensic Science in Criminal
Investigation: Admissibility in Indian Legal System and Future Perspective, 7
International journal of advanced research in science and engineering 1-15
(2018).
[3] Marilee
M Kapsa & Carl B Meyer, Scientific Experts: Making Their Testimony More
Reliable, 35 california western law review 1-21 (1999).
[4] Hal
S Stern & David Kaye, Reliability and Validity of Forensic Science
Evidence, 16 Significance 21-24 (2019).
[5] T.H
Henriques, The Role of Forensic Science in the Trial of Harold Shipman., 43
Semantic scholar 185-188 (2003).
[6] Howes,
L. (2015) “Towards coherent co-presentation of expert evidence in criminal
trials: Experiences of communication between forensic scientists and legal
practitioners,” Criminal Law Journal, pp. 1–21.
[9] Indian
evidence act I.E.A. § 112 (Gazette of I 1872).
[10] Hal
S Stern & David Kaye, Reliability and Validity of Forensic Science
Evidence, 16 Significance 21-24 (2019).
[11] Indian
evidence act I.E.A. § 45 (Gazette of I 1872).
Article Information
ROLE OF A PROSECUTION COUNSEL IN TRIALS WITH REFERENCE TO FORENSIC SCIENCE
Authors: GURMEHAR RANDHAWA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/14
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.