Often, Greenwald said, a simple question can put doubt in a jury's mind. That familiarity comes in handy, he said, when it's time to cross-examine a lead investigator.
"In order to practice defense law today, a criminal defense attorney should be exceptionally familiar with the forensic sciences - blood, fingerprinting and ballistics," Greenwald said. And not only is it forcing cops and prosecutors to be more vigilant, it's prompting defense attorneys, like Orange County's Gary Greenwald, to brush up on forensics, too. The onslaught of forensics has also heightened the "reasonable doubt" bar when it comes to criminal cases, defense attorneys say. That's often what criminal defense teams look for in court. "If one juror is dissatisfied by the type of evidence presented, they'll just throw the case out." "It only takes one juror to upset the apple cart," Kobilinsky said. "I don't know what effect the shows have had because you never know the thought process going in to their verdict," said Orange County District Attorney Frank Phillips. No studies have been done to assess the impact of such programming. It's hard to quantify such theories, experts admit. "It's a subconscious, maybe even a conscious, feeling jurors have." "They could very easily assume either the prosecution couldn't produce the results or didn't try," Kobilinsky said. "The average person sitting on a jury who watches television or goes to the movies has come to expect all these technological advances to be used by the prosecution." Lawrence Kobilinsky, assistant provost and professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
0 kommentar(er)
