Evidence and Investigation: From the Crime Scene to the Courtroom

This is a new book by Kerry Watkins a Centre Alumnus.


With an author team consisting of a police investigator, an experienced criminal defence lawyer, and a forensic scientist (all teaching in their fields), Evidence and Investigation: From the Crime Scene to the Courtroom describes the factors that make evidence valuable in the courtroom and points to the common pitfalls that can weaken an otherwise promising investigation. This new text also explores the many uses of forensic science in an investigation, with current and high-profile examples such as the Russell Williams case and, even more recently, the Shafia family case.
The book is divided into three parts that introduces readers to the legal considerations and best practices in collecting evidence at the crime scene and throughout an investigation, and presenting it in a courtroom. Part I provides a working knowledge of the law of evidence, explaining the basics of a criminal trial, types of evidence, and the rules governing admissibility.
Part II includes a description of the current law governing search and seizure activities and the requirements for Charter-compliant searches. The importance of continuity and the collection of evidence free of taint is underscored, as is the importance of accurate record-keeping. The authors outline the most current information on digital evidence, DNA evidence, crime labs, death investigations, and the forensic sciences. The rules and techniques that apply to conducting interviews with both witness and suspects are clearly set out.
Part III returns to the courtroom, focusing on cross-examination and providing prospective officers with an understanding of this often-gruelling and little-understood stage of a trial. This part provides a wealth of advice on how to function professionally in the witness box and give evidence fully, fairly, and firmly.
For instructors, this text comes with a comprehensive Instructor's Guide, PowerPoint presentations, and a test bank.

Here is a link to the publishing info.

If George Zimmerman Were on Trial

Which evidence about the shooting of Trayvon Martin could a jury hear?

As new information continues to surface about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, we’re hearing a lot about how the facts are dividing rather than uniting us. As David Carr points out, as social media and the Internet take over the conversation, what you make of Martin’s use of the Twitter handle @no_limit_nigga, or the hard-to-hear 911 call in which Zimmerman may or may not have used a racial epithet, has a lot to do with your own predilections. Most of us have staked out a position by now. We have a gut sense about whether Martin was killed for little or no reason, or whether Zimmerman truly acted in self-defense, as he claims. We read the evidence in a way that confirms our instincts.

But let’s imagine for a moment that Zimmerman gets arrested, stands trial for homicide, and argues self-defense in court. That is what I still think should have happened, with or without Florida’s Stand Your Ground law (though it’s true that the law hasn’t helped). If Zimmerman is ever tried by a jury (instead of by public opinion), what evidence would be admitted? What would the jury likely hear in deciding whether to convict Zimmerman for Martin’s death?

I asked a few defense lawyers and criminal law experts that question—Dana Bazelon (my sister) and Paul Messing, a law firm colleague of hers; Harlan Protass (a Slate contributor); and Rachel Barkow at New York University Law School, who enlisted her colleague and evidence professor Erin Murphy. Here’s what they had to say, going through the evidence I asked them about, piece by piece.

Read on....

Judge not obliged to view disturbing evidence before sentencing offender, court rules

Ontario’s highest court has split over the question of whether a judge is obliged to view highly disturbing evidence before sentencing an offender.

The 2-1 split in favour of allowing a judge to avoid a full viewing of the evidence sets up the distinct possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The evidence in the case took the form of explicit videotape of a man sexually assaulting his daughter while she begged him to stop.

Ontario Court Judge Stephen J. Hunter declined to watch a compilation of several videos taken by the defendant. He said that he could well imagine what the tape depicted, given his 20 years on the bench and 15 years as a lawyer for a children’s aid society in Eastern Ontario.

“I have seen and been exposed to significant examples of the type of behaviour here,” Judge Hunter said.

Read on...

Our Dangerous Devotion to Eyewitness Testimony

The eyes of Troy Anthony Davis as he entered a courtroom on January 16, 1991. (AP Photo/Savannah Morning News)

"We see what we want to see,” my grandmother used to say. This insight visited me recently after I ran across the mall chasing a woman I thought was my cousin. It wasn’t, as it turned out, but I didn’t realize that until after I had puffed up behind her, bopped her amiably on the shoulder and cried out, “Boo!”

How was it possible, I thought in retrospective embarrassment, to so wrongly misidentify someone I know so well? Empirically my experience was all too common. I’d been thinking about my cousin a few moments before and saw the woman through the lens of those thoughts. We often project our life’s associations onto the faces of strangers. Constantly—if mostly unconsciously—we familiarize them with learned stereotypes. If we are wise, we learn to take caution with our assumptions. We recognize this innate fallibility, and most of the time it doesn’t matter very much.

Oddly enough, however, we reverse that supposition in the one context where fallibility matters most: in criminal cases, eyewitness testimony is viewed as the ne plus ultra for the prosecution, despite a century’s worth of psychological and sociological studies revealing that, from Sacco and Vanzetti to Troy Davis, witnesses misperceive a startling percentage of the time. “Human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time,” writes Cornell law professor Michael Dorf. “The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent—a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony. These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be ‘certain’ of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.”

Read on...

A crime debate without facts or arguments

By Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen

I suppose I could write a substantive and serious column about the government's omnibus crime bill.

First, I'd explain the many proposals. Then I'd say they are a terrible mistake. They will not reduce crime, but they will waste billions of dollars, spawn injustices, and damage communities. Or so I would argue.

If I did that, I would cite evidence. Lots of it. There's a small mountain of criminological research to support my case, along with much fine writing by jurists and political scientists. There's also practical experience, here and elsewhere - especially the United States, where even rock-ribbed Republicans are having second thoughts about the policies Stephen Harper is importing to this country.

I could do that. It would be easy. I've done it before. Dozens of times. I've been writing about criminal justice policy ever since I became a journalist in 1997.

Read on...