Forensics_Guy
Witness
The Anatomy of a Criminal Investigation
There are three major parts to a criminal investigation, all three are popularized in television shows. The first part is the investigation of the crimes after the crime. The second part is the scientific analysis of evidence gathered during the investigation. The third and last part is the legal battle waged in the courtroom between the attorneys for the state and the defense, using different interpretations of the findings gathered during the first part, and the opinions generated in the second part.
The investigation is most commonly carried out by local law enforcement agencies. The manner is which law enforcement agencies is under constant scrutiny by people both inside and outside of that field. The investigation generally ends when a suspect is identified, and sufficient evidence has been collected to convince the police of the suspects guilt. But investigation can also take place by private investigators on behalf of the defense, as well as investigators acting on behalf of the state attorney. All three groups can collect evidence as as result of visiting the scene (the police usually have first dibs), and interviewing witnesses. The primary job of the police agency is of course to maintain/improve public safety. The primary job of the defense investigators is to help the defendant prove their innocence. The primary job of the state attorney's investigators is to help the state prove the guilt of the defendant.
The scientific analysis has traditionally been carried out by police laboratories. More and more independent laboratories are starting to reanalyze, if not analyze, the evidence as well. Generally police investigators have a good working relationship with the police crime laboratory. The result is that if backlogs are not too great, the scientist can actually help detectives with an ongoing investigation. The scientist's main job is to examine the evidence with impartiality, and report conclusions/opinions based solely on the physical evidence they examined, and not on reported tales of the incident.
In the courtroom arena, through a series of rules and precedents that few people fully understand, the attorneys for both sides try to convince the trier of fact that there is either enough (in the case for the state) or not enough (in the case for the defense) evidence to find the defendant guilty. Both sides will call upon their own witnesses to support their claim during "direct examination". The witness if then subject to "cross-examination" by opposing council. Usually the original side is allowed to "re-direct" any questions brought up during cross-examination. In some jurisdictions the trier of fact is allowed to ask their own questions, which can lead to another round of direct/cross/re-direct questions from the attorneys. During direct examination the attorney brings out facts/opinions that support their claim, and might even bring out fact/opinions that hurt their claims in attempts to minimize the damage those facts might do to their case in a series of questions they control. During cross-examination the attorney can either try to attack the qualifications of the witness to try and decrease the amount of weight the trier of fact will give to that witness's testimony/opinions. The attorney might also try and show how the scenarios the first attorney brought up might not be the only possible scenarios that could explain the evidence collected.
There are three major parts to a criminal investigation, all three are popularized in television shows. The first part is the investigation of the crimes after the crime. The second part is the scientific analysis of evidence gathered during the investigation. The third and last part is the legal battle waged in the courtroom between the attorneys for the state and the defense, using different interpretations of the findings gathered during the first part, and the opinions generated in the second part.
The investigation is most commonly carried out by local law enforcement agencies. The manner is which law enforcement agencies is under constant scrutiny by people both inside and outside of that field. The investigation generally ends when a suspect is identified, and sufficient evidence has been collected to convince the police of the suspects guilt. But investigation can also take place by private investigators on behalf of the defense, as well as investigators acting on behalf of the state attorney. All three groups can collect evidence as as result of visiting the scene (the police usually have first dibs), and interviewing witnesses. The primary job of the police agency is of course to maintain/improve public safety. The primary job of the defense investigators is to help the defendant prove their innocence. The primary job of the state attorney's investigators is to help the state prove the guilt of the defendant.
The scientific analysis has traditionally been carried out by police laboratories. More and more independent laboratories are starting to reanalyze, if not analyze, the evidence as well. Generally police investigators have a good working relationship with the police crime laboratory. The result is that if backlogs are not too great, the scientist can actually help detectives with an ongoing investigation. The scientist's main job is to examine the evidence with impartiality, and report conclusions/opinions based solely on the physical evidence they examined, and not on reported tales of the incident.
In the courtroom arena, through a series of rules and precedents that few people fully understand, the attorneys for both sides try to convince the trier of fact that there is either enough (in the case for the state) or not enough (in the case for the defense) evidence to find the defendant guilty. Both sides will call upon their own witnesses to support their claim during "direct examination". The witness if then subject to "cross-examination" by opposing council. Usually the original side is allowed to "re-direct" any questions brought up during cross-examination. In some jurisdictions the trier of fact is allowed to ask their own questions, which can lead to another round of direct/cross/re-direct questions from the attorneys. During direct examination the attorney brings out facts/opinions that support their claim, and might even bring out fact/opinions that hurt their claims in attempts to minimize the damage those facts might do to their case in a series of questions they control. During cross-examination the attorney can either try to attack the qualifications of the witness to try and decrease the amount of weight the trier of fact will give to that witness's testimony/opinions. The attorney might also try and show how the scenarios the first attorney brought up might not be the only possible scenarios that could explain the evidence collected.