CRIMES, COURTS, AND COMMENTARY
Interviews, current events, recommendations, and more --
all geared to the criminal law student community.
all geared to the criminal law student community.
Lauren Teixeira (CLSA 2L Executive) The Criminal Law Students Association (“CLSA”) recently hosted a panel on Criminal Law and Forensics. Three panelists answered several questions and discussed amongst each other their experiences with forensic science and the role that it plays within their careers. *Disclaimer: All panelists’ views are their own and do not represent that of their employer (MAG or otherwise).
Dr. Tracy Rogers, a forensic anthropologist, brought a hands-on perspective to the panel, as her job involves working in the field. She is currently a consultant to the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, in addition to being Director of the Forensic Science Program and Associate Professor of Anthropology at University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM). Dr. Rogers was involved in the prominent investigation of the serial killer Robert Pickton. Caitlin Pakosh is an Assistant Crown Attorney in Newmarket who has researched and written about the intersection of criminal law and forensic science. She graduated from UTM’s Forensic Science Program, where she was a student of Dr. Rogers’. Ms. Pakosh was able to speak extensively to the role that forensic evidence plays in criminal trials and the interactions that lawyers have with experts in the forensic field. Wade Knaap is a retired Forensic Identification Specialist with the Toronto Police Services, where he worked for about 36 years, 29 of which were spent in the Forensics Department. He is also a part-time Professor at UTM in the Forensic Science Program. Mr. Knaap’s time in the force allowed him to give first-hand accounts of crime scenes he encountered and the challenges that accompany being part of a first response team. Each of the panelists spoke to the most common kinds of forensic evidence they’ve encountered. For Dr. Rogers, her area encompasses a diverse field of evidence and varies by crime scene. The core of her work revolves around locating human remains and from there, making determinations about what happened to or identifying the individual. Mr. Knaap spoke about how police are often the first attendees of crime scene and see a variety of evidence at each crime scene ranging from firearm ballistics to impression evidence. Ms. Pakosh does not deal directly with evidence but often relies on forensic evidence in putting forth her case in court. This kind of evidence is particularly useful for cases where identification is in issue and there is DNA evidence present. The panelists debunked some common myths when asked about any types of evidence that are perceived as more reliable by the public than they might be in practice. Ms. Pakosh identified DNA as one example of this. She explained that jurors especially, tend to view DNA evidence as black or white: if it is available, it weighs heavily against the defendant. However, DNA evidence is not always conclusively inculpatory; it could be a case of innocent transfer. An explanation for the seeming confidence in DNA evidence is that it is one of the most well-known forms of forensic evidence and is grounded in science. Mr. Knaap elaborated on the importance of establishing the reliability of a type of evidence before accepting it into the legal system. In doing so, he discussed the criticisms of evidence relating to fire investigations given the area’s lack of history, research, and establishment in the scientific field. Dr. Rogers and Mr. Knaap have both had the experience of providing evidence to lawyers and being examined-in-chief, while Ms. Pakosh has had the experience of receiving expert evidence and conducting the examination-in-chief of forensic experts. This made for a very interesting dichotomous discussion as to the perspectives and function of both roles. Dr. Rogers expressed that often, lawyers have a conclusion in their head with regards to the evidence and do not pay enough attention to what the expert is telling them is important; her advice to lawyers is to not have tunnel vision when examining the forensic evidence. Given the complexity of the field, Dr. Rogers also emphasized the difficulty of presenting evidence to the factfinder in a way that is comprehensive but also understandable, while also avoiding graphic details. Mr. Knaap and Dr. Rogers concurred that a common occurrence they have experienced on the stand is not quite understanding what evidence a lawyer’s question is trying to elicit, stemming from a lack of communication. This leads into Ms. Pakosh’s piece of advice that as a lawyer, you should always meet with your expert witness prior to trial. This way, the witness will gain an understanding of what each question is getting at and be able to provide the evidence required for the case. Additionally, the lawyer will gain a better grasp on the complex evidence and therefore, an easier time at trial presenting the narrative to the factfinder. Ms. Pakosh described that one thing that criminal lawyers sometimes find troublesome is that experts do not usually present the evidence in black or white terms. This can often frustrate lawyers who are trying to advance a specific narrative. However, one upside to experts’ tendency to do this is that it may ward off any arguments of bias. Dr. Rogers and Mr. Knaap spoke about the challenges that they encounter in collecting evidence. For forensic anthropologists such as Dr. Rogers, one of the big challenges faced is collection of human remains, given the wide variety of conditions they may be found in. Mr. Knaap, in noting that the priority for police upon arriving at a crime (after preservation of life) is securing the perimeter, discussed the several barriers and issues that can arise in doing so. First, the perimeter of a scene is often not clear. An example provided was a case in which a deceased victim was found with bullet wounds in one location, however after securing the scene, police found spent cartridges ranging down the road and deduced that the shooting had begun at a bus stop a few kilometers away. Another concern is alteration of the scene. This may happen if a victim or any other person cleans up the scene or changes it. Weather may also play a role: high winds and snow specifically can make it difficult to find the evidence and document its original location. This panel was an interesting mix of perspectives of those who work or have worked directly in the field of forensic anthropology, and those who utilize the experts’ findings in criminal law. The passion that the panelists have for their work was evident, and the importance of their work – unmistakable. For any students with an interest in forensics, this panel demonstrates how you can involve yourself in the area regardless of the position you desire to hold in the legal field: a forensic anthropologist, a police officer, an academic, or a lawyer.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Want to contribute? Pitch an idea to CLSA Blog Editors Ben Elhav & Nik Khakhar at [email protected] & [email protected].
|