Q-1 Ans.

What is Cross Examination and Expert Witness? Definition/Meaning of the Cross Examination:The questioning of a witness or party during a trial, hearing, or deposition by the party opposing the one who asked the person to testify in order to evaluate the truth of that person's testimony, to develop the testimony further, or to accomplish any other objective. The interrogation of a witness or party by the party opposed to the one who called the witness or party, upon a subject raised during direct examination the initial questioning of a witness or party on the merits of that testimony. The scope of cross-examination is generally restricted to matters covered during direct examination. Ten Basic Rules of Cross - Examination Following are the basic rules of Cross Examination, which the experienced crossexaminer would agree are the very basic rules of form: 1. Plan your attack, determining what your purpose is and centering it on the jury arguments (1) that you expect to make based on the cross-examination. To put cross of witnesses in the metaphoric language of a fisherman: You hook 'em and land 'em in cross and clean 'em and fry 'em in jury argument. 2. Try to predict which witnesses will be called by the opposition and and anticipate what questions your opponent will ask each witness on direct examination. [It's easier to prepare than to predict, but the latter is antecedent to the former.] 3. Decide if your cross will be supportive, concession-based and/or destructive, discrediting in nature, and, if both, decide which will come first. [Constructive, concession-based cross should typically go before destructive, discrediting cross; constructive cross typically first seeks favorable concessions from the witness of facts that are beyond dispute; constructive cross would utilize the opposition's witness to authenticate and establish the predicate for introduction of the cross-examiner's evidence. 4. Consider what limitations the rules of evidence and procedure place on the scope and nature of your questions. 5. Determine whether some potential legitimate cross would blunt the force of other potential legitimate cross. Remember, on cross you get to pick your fights. You do not have to respond to everything that was said on direct. Your purpose with destructive cross is to neutralize otherwise harmful testimony and to cast doubt upon the credibility of the testifier.

6. Consider whether some available cross would be viewed as nit-picking, quibbling, petty, and or stale. [Here the key to me would be whether the available cross would support my jury argument.] 7. Craft your questions. Learn the legal foundation for each relevant mode of impeachment. Craft the predicate questions. Craft the other questions with emphasis on those answers that will support the jury argument you expect to make. Key questions should be phrased to prevent the witness from wiggling off the hook. Each key questions in a lawyer controlled cross-examination should be short, leading, ask about only one new fact per inquiry, and be posed with a rising inflection at the end of the question to ensure that it cannot be interpreted as a declarative statement. 8. Cross-examination questions should be planned and organized in units (segments/blocks) by subject matter rather than in the chronological order often used with direct examination. 9. Questioning within each specific subject unit should be from general to specific, i.e., funneling. 10. The cross-examiner should make a dedicated effort to be aware of the relative safety or risk of posing each question. Avoid kamikaze cross. Think about the sequencing of your subject units. Don't start your cross coincident to the same subject that the direct ended upon. The witness' brain will be geared and ready on that subject. Pick a different subject, always a pretty strong one, e.g., a concession, so the witness' thinking will be starting in parking gear. Think about the sequencing of questions within each subject unit. As one means of inquiring about details on cross, you need to master the technique of pinning the witness down by funneling your questions. The so-called T-funnel form of question, often used in pretrial interviewing of witnesses and clients, seeks first to clarify the area of inquiry for the jury with openended questions before focusing on narrow specifics with leading questions. To gain the jury's attention, you should try to make the cross-examination of each witness interesting and persuasive. Think about the persuasive influence of your cross. If you don't dispute it, don't cross on it. For example, you might be able to cross on a particular subject, but, if you are going to admit the fact because it is beyond dispute, you will lose persuasive power with the jury by crossing on it. Concerning the attitude you will display, know before you begin whether you are going to be friendly, neutral, or hostile to the witness. Certainly, not every crossexamination will be confrontational. You may want to display more than one attitude. If you plan to elicit supportive facts and gain concessions from the witness, you should do this first and do it with a friendly or neutral attitude that will promote witness

cooperation. If you begin your cross with a nasty attitude, your witness will display the attitude of a hedgehog at bay, and you will appear disingenuous if you then try to be friendly or neutral. Decide in advance what point(s) you are going to try to make with your cross of the witness. What do you want to be able to argue to the jury about the witness? These re probably the points you want to make. You may need to gather and study certain tangible items for use in crossexamination. For example, if you are cross-examining a confidential informant or a cooperating co-conspirator, you will typically have a game plan that will require you to read documents in preparation for cross. In the former case of the so-called confidential government informant, you may want to show that the control agent, e.g., FBI, DEA, did not keep the informant on a tight leash as required by written department guidelines or regulations. You will want to obtain copies of the agency's policy on "informants." See Pretrial Preparation for information regarding obtaining federal law enforcement agency operational manuals. In the latter case of the cooperating co-conspirator witness, you may want to show the concessions that the prosecutor has agreed to confer on the witness if the witness performs as desired. You will want to obtain a copy of any written or recorded agreement(s) between the prosecution, the cooperating witness, and the witness' lawyer. Prepare and block out your topics and anticipated questions as part of your pretrial preparation. Construct each point you wish to make into a unit or block. Give the point a descriptive name, i.e., the point you will argue to the jury. Highlight the key words in each question of the unit, block, or segment. You will then barrage the witness with each of the separate units of cross. In argument, you will stack all of these units, blocks or segments of your cross onto the witness with the goal of crushing his credibility. History of the Expert Witness:The earliest known use of an expert witness in English law came in 1782, when a court that was hearing litigation relating to the silting-up of Wells harbour in Norfolk accepted evidence from a leading civil engineer, John Smeaton. This decision by the court to accept Smeaton's evidence is widely cited as the root of modern rules on expert evidence. However, it was still such an unusual feature in court that in 1957 in the Old Bailey, Lord Justice Patrick Devlin could describe the case of suspected serial killer Dr John Bodkin Adams thus: "It is a most curious situation, perhaps unique in these courts, that the act of murder has to be proved by expert evidence."

On the other hand, expert evidence is often the most important component of many civil and criminal cases today. Fingerprint examination, blood analysis and DNA fingerprinting are common kinds of expert evidence heard in serious criminal cases. In civil cases, the work of accident analysis, forensic engineers, and forensic accountants is usually important, the latter to assess damages and costs in long and complex cases. Intellectual property and medical negligence cases are typical examples Electronic evidence has also entered the courtroom as critical forensic evidence. Audio and video evidence must be authenticated by both parties in any litigation by a forensic expert who is also an expert witness who assists the court in understanding details about that electronic evidence. Voice-mail recordings and closed-circuit television systems produce electronic evidence often used in litigation, more so today than in the past. Video recordings of bank robberies and audio recordings of life threats are presented in court rooms by electronic expert witnesses. Definition/Meaning of Expert Witness:An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise. At times, their testimony may be rebutted with a learned treatise, sometimes to the detriment of their reputations. Typically, experts are relied on for opinions on severity of injury, degree of insanity, cause of failure in a machine or other device, loss of earnings, care costs, and the like. In an intellectual property case, an expert may be shown two music scores, book texts, or circuit boards and asked to ascertain their degree of similarity. In the majority of cases the expert's personal relation to the defendant is considered irrelevant. The tribunal itself, or the judge, can in some systems call upon experts to technically evaluate a certain fact or action, in order to provide the court with a complete knowledge on the fact/action it is judging. The expertise has the legal value of an acquisition of data. The results of these experts are then compared to those by the experts of the parties. The expert has a heavy responsibility, especially in penal trials, and perjury by an expert is a severely punished crime in most countries. The use of expert witnesses is

sometimes criticized in the United States because in civil trials, they are often used by both sides to advocate differing positions, and it is left up to a jury of laymen to decide which expert witness to believe. Although experts are legally prohibited from expressing their opinion of submitted evidence until after they are hired, sometimes a party can surmise beforehand, because of reputation or prior cases, that the testimony will be favorable regardless of any basis in the submitted data; such experts are commonly disparaged as "hired guns." Following are mainly two types of experts, viz.Non-testifying experts In the U.S., a party can hire experts to help him/her evaluate the case. For example, a car maker may hire an experienced mechanic to decide if its cars were built to specification. This kind of expert opinion will be protected from discovery. If the expert finds something that is against its client, the opposite party will not know it. This privilege is similar to the work product protected by the attorney/client privilege. The non-testifying expert can be present at trial or hearing to aid the attorney in asking questions of other expert witnesses. Testifying experts:If the witness needs to testify in court, the privilege is no longer protected. The expert witness's identity and nearly all documents used to prepare the testimony will become discoverable. Usually an experienced lawyer will advise the expert not to take notes on documents because all of the notes will be available to the other party. An expert testifying in court must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Generally, under Rule 702, an expert is a person with scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" who can "assist the trier of fact, which is typically a jury. A qualified expert may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise so long as: (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Although experts can testify in any case in which their expertise is relevant, criminal cases are more likely to use forensic scientists or forensic psychologists, whereas civil cases, such as personal injury, may use forensic engineers, forensic accountants, employment consultants or care experts. Senior physicians UK, Ireland, and Commonwealth consultants, U.S. attending physicians are frequently used in both the civil and criminal courts.

The Federal Court of Australia has issued guidelines for experts appearing in Australian courts. This covers the format of the expert's written testimony as well as their behavior in court. Similar procedures apply in non-court forums, such as the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. An expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the court. A witness may be jointly instructed by both sides if the parties agree to this, especially in cases where the liability is relatively small. An expert witnesses are usually instructed to produce a joint statement detailing points of agreement and disagreement to assist the court or tribunal. The meeting is held quite independently of instructing lawyers, and often assists in resolution of a case, especially if the experts review and modify their opinions. When this happens, substantial trial costs can be saved when the parties to a dispute agree to a settlement. In most systems, the trial (or the procedure) can be suspended in order to allow the experts to study the case and produce their results. More frequently, meetings of experts occur before trial. Experts charge a professional fee which is paid by the party commissioning the report (both parties for joint instructions) although the report is addressed to the court. The fee must not be contingent on the outcome of the case. Expert witnesses may be subpoenaed (issued with a witness summons), although this is normally a formality to avoid court date clashes.

Q-2 Ans

What is Tool Mark Examination? Definition/Meaning:A toolmark is defined as the impression left by the contact of a tool (or a similar object) onto a surface. When the tool or object contacts the surface with sufficient force to create an indentation, the pattern of the tool is permanently reproduced onto that surface. Toolmarks examination is an important discipline of criminalistics. Its goal is to establish a link between a toolmark and the tool that created it. Such links are crucial in forensic sciences, as tools are often used in criminal activities, particularly in burglaries, and can help to identify a criminal. For example, when a burglar uses a pry bar to force entry into a house, the marks left by the tool on the door frame are direct evidence of the presence of that tool for that particular use at the crime scene. If the tool is found with, or near, a suspect, it permits the establishment of a link between the suspect and the crime scene. Thus, the recognition and collection of toolmarks at the crime scene and their examination at the laboratory are paramount. Toolmarks bear two kinds of characteristics: class and individual. The class characteristics of a toolmark include the type of impression, its general shape, and its general dimensions. Class characteristics typically allow the examiner to determine what type of tool created the impression and how the mark was created. Conversely, they do not permit for the identification of the exact tool that created the impression. This means that if only class characteristics are available on a toolmark, it will not be possible to distinguish which tool, among a series of similar tools, made the impression. Individual characteristics, also called accidental characteristics, are the striations and small particularities exhibited by the tool that are individual to one unique tool. They consist of small, commonly microscopic, indentations, ridges, and irregularities present on the tool itself. For example, the tip of a screwdriver is never perfectly flat, but shows small ridges along its edge. These are created by the history of the tool such as its use and misuse, its cleaning, and its maintenance. These characteristics are the only ones that permit a formal identification. If such characteristics are present in the toolmark, it is possible to identify the actual individual tool that created the impression, even among a series of identical tools. There are two main types of toolmarks that can be distinguished: The slipped impression The slipped impression occurs as the tool drags or slides across the surface. The resulting toolmark is a series of striations running parallel to each other following the direction of the drag. For example, such impressions are created by slipping a key across the door of a vehicle, by cutting with a knife (not used in a sawing motion) through a given material, or by cutting an electrical wire using a pair of lineman's pliers.

The molded impressions The molded impressions are the result of the contact of a tool onto a surface with no lateral motion (no drag nor slip). The resulting toolmarks are a three-dimensional mold of the part of the tool that contacted the surface. Examples of such impressions are the leverage of a door from its frame with a pry bar, or the serial number stamped onto a fire-arm's barrel. Some toolmarks are made of a combination of molded and slipped impressions. Toolmark examination is a term that includes a wide variety of impressions that are not necessarily directly related to tools but that are created via the same fashion and are, therefore, examined with the same techniques. A clear example is the impression left by a firearm's barrel onto a bullet or by the firearm onto the cartridge. These are a specialized category of toolmarks. Other examples include the impressions left by human teeth or even the impressions left by shoes or tires. Very often, the toolmark examiner is the person responsible for examining and rendering expert opinions on such impression's identifications. The examination of toolmarks is conducted in different phases. First, the toolmark is observed, measured, and described. Second, a photograph perpendicular to the toolmark, is taken. This provides a permanent record of the class and some individual characteristics of the toolmark. Then, if the support onto which the toolmark is located cannot be collected as evidence, a cast of the toolmark is made. This cast is usually made with polymeric dental paste. When a tool is discovered and its class characteristics match the ones exhibited by the toolmark, the comparison process is started. Usually, the tool is observed and photographed. Then, comparison tool-marks are made with the tool on a soft material so that extra marks are not created on the tool. A comparison microscope is used to perform the comparison process. The incriminated toolmark is placed on the left side of the microscope and the comparison mark on the right side. If a match exists between the individual characteristics, the common origin between the incriminated toolmark and the tool is established. Microscopic Procedures:The following should be addressed prior to any microscopic comparisons: Review laboratory protocols, as needed. Complete administrative requirements: Chain of custody Marking of evidence Laboratory case identifiers

Investigative file identifier Examiner identity Quality assurance Follow laboratory safety protocols.

Determine the presence of trace evidence and follow laboratory protocol for collection. Examples of trace evidence include paint, glass, blood, bone, soft tissue, hair, fibers, wood, metal smears, masonry, stone.

Determine if latent fingerprint examinations should be performed prior to toolmark examinations. Determine if other examinations (not requested) should be performed. If so, coordinate with the investigator. After the requirements dictated by trace evidence and latent fingerprints have been addressed, the toolmarked area can be cleaned: Paint may be removed by soaking the tool in alcohol or acetone. Plaster may be removed by soaking the tool in 15 percent acetic acid. Loose material may be removed by rinsing the tool in water or methanol. Blood and other biohazards may be removed by soaking for at least one minute in a 10 percent bleach solution. Microscopic Comparisons:When conducting microscopic comparisons, considerations include these:

Ensure that stereo- and comparison microscopes meet all maintenance and calibration standards. For the comparison microscope, select an appropriate level of magnification for both objective lenses. This setting will frequently be 1x or 2x. Ensure that the objective lenses are locked in place. Select the appropriate level of magnification for both ocular lenses. This will typically be 10x. If used with the objective lenses set at 1x or 2x, this will produce a total magnification of 10x or 20x, respectively. Many examiners prefer the lower end of this range. Select the same type and orientation of light source for each comparison microscope stage. Production of Test Toolmarks To maximize effectiveness and efficiency when producing test marks as a basis for comparison against a toolmark made by an evidence tool, a number of variables must be considered: The manner in which the tool acted on a toolmarked surface (the action employed). The area(s) of the tools operating surface that was used. The amount of force used on the tool The direction in which the operating surface of the tool moved. With some tools this may be very limited (bolt cutters); with other tools there may be nearly unlimited directions (a screwdriver). The angle or orientation of the tool relative to the marked surface. The physical circumstances of the crime scene that may limit how a tool could be used (e.g., a wall adjacent to a door lock that forces a tool of a given size to be used in a particular orientation). The type of surface in which an evidence toolmark is found determines the test medium used to reproduce the mark. It is important not to alter the tool when obtaining a test mark; a softer medium, such as simple sheet lead, should be used. Typically, it is necessary to perform a number of tests to obtain a result that most closely resembles the evidence mark. Test marks should be microscopically intercompared to ensure the reproducibility of marks. Whether dealing with striated

marks or impressions, tools with a limited operating surface and few options as to their orientation with the surface they mark are the easiest tools from which to obtain test marks. When obtaining test marks, it is important to relate the cut edges or impressions to the corresponding operating surface of the tool by color coding, numbering, or lettering. This systematic approach allows for detailed documentation and imaging. Many examiners find it useful to use personally designed devices as a convenience in reproducing toolmarks of various types. Because there are no suppliers of specialized equipment for replicating toolmarks, the examiner must be prepared to adapt and improvise. Comparison of Evidence Toolmarks and Test Marks:A typical approach for the comparison of test marks versus marks on evidence items includes the following steps: Perform preliminary procedures according to laboratory protocols. Confirm that the evidence item bears class and microscopic marks of value for comparison purposes and that these marks are suitable for comparison. The use of a stereomicroscope at lower magnification is excellent for this purpose. Adjust the lighting of the comparison microscope from the rear to provide oblique or grazing illumination over the surface of the marks towards the examiner. Place the test marks on the right stage in a convenient orientation with the best marks possible in the center of the field of view and index this best area using a colored permanent marker. Place the evidence item on the left stage with the questioned marks in an appropriate orientation for comparison. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to adapt and improvise (depending on the nature, size, shape, weight, and bulk of the evidence) to ensure that the questioned area can fit into the space between the objective lens and the stage, while still maintaining the ability to shift it in the x, y, and z axes. This can be accomplished in several ways, including the following: Remove the questioned marks from the evidence item. Before proceeding, obtain appropriate permission to modify the evidence. Use plasticene (a plastic paste) or clay as a foundation to secure the questioned area in an appropriate orientation.

Fabricate a specimen mount. Cast the marks and compare these casts with casts of the test marks. Align the evidence marks with the test marks on either side of the optical hairline of the microscope to confirm the consistency of class characteristics. If the class characteristics are different, it will be possible to exclude the questioned tool. If the class characteristics are consistent, the examination should proceed. Manipulate the evidence item to search for individual characteristics similar to the best area of the test mark. If an area of sufficient agreement is found, a corresponding index mark should be placed on the evidence using the same color permanent marker as was used to index the test mark. The area of best agreement should be documented, preferably by digital or conventional photography or other means, as determined by laboratory protocol. Images should be marked with the examiners initials, case identifier, degree of magnification, item numbers, and a description of the nature of the observed area.

Q-3

What precautions should be taken during Crime Scene Investigation and Processing Physical Evidences? Precautions:Crime scenes are not always dangerous for the CSI techs and investigators, but when safety hazards exist, appropriate precautions must be taken. Fortunately, technology has allowed us to develop new techniques for keeping professionals away from harm, and crime scenes are processed with much more care than they were in the past. Following are some of the ways in which CSI techs deal with safety hazards at crime scenes. Hands:Although protective gloves are necessary at any crime scene to avoid destruction of evidence or introduction of contaminants, such as fingerprints of authorities, they are also used to avoid safety hazards. CSI techs carry a large supply of gloves wherever they go, and gloves come on as soon as they enter a scene. Nitrile, neoprene, latex and Polyvinyl chloride are just a few of the types of gloves used by CSI techs, each of which can protect against different hazards. For example, nitrile gloves won't degrade when exposed to gasoline, but latex gloves will. Eyes:The eyes are arguably the most vulnerable part of the body when dealing with crime scene safety. If chemicals are found in or near the crime scene, safety goggles or face shield must be used at all times. This is also true if any machinery needs to take place, such as when the jaws of life are used to remove a victim from a vehicle. Furthermore, eye safety is important when dealing with any type of drug crime, but especially meth labs where chemicals are used in abundance. Feet:Foot protection is always important at crime scenes, if only to avoid creating foot prints that might be misconstrued as either the victim's or the perpetrator's. However, it is also important at treacherous crime scenes where the hazards of falling or tripping exist. Boots with plenty of ankle support, protective shoe covers, and thick soles are necessary to keep CSI techs and investigators safe. Respiratory:Just as it is possible to get chemicals on the hands or in the eyes, it is also possible to inhale hazardous chemicals at crime scenes. For this reason, CSI techs have to be extra careful to protect their lungs, often using contamination suits. At a minimum, everyone

Ans

involved at a crime scene should be trained on the proper use of respirators and should be examined every six months to ensure their lungs are healthy and active. Head:Lastly, head protection is an integral part of crime scene safety. When hazards exist that put CSI techs' heads in danger, they must wear helmets that have been approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This might include the possibility of falling objects or the investigation of close, confined spaces. All of these things are important to crime scene safety, but there are other elements as well. For example, if a CSI tech isn't using the proper gloves and is stuck by a needle, the possibility of blood contamination exists. It is important for everyone involved in the investigation of a crime scene to understand the potential hazards and take the appropriate precautions.

Q-4 Ans.

Types & classification of Evidences. Many types of evidence exist. But first, I believe it is necessary to remind everyone of direct and indirect evidence. "Direct evidence is evidence that proves a fact or proposition directly, rather that by secondary deduction or inference" (Nemeth, 2001). Eyewitness testimony and a defendant's confession are both "direct" evidence. Indirect ( circumstantial) evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact. Circumstantial evidence includes body fluids, fibers, and expert witnesses. For example, a woman is found dead at her home with a fiber on her shirt. Eventually, the fiber can lead to the killer. As stated above, many types of evidence exist. Judicially noticed evidence is usually automatically admitted and does not require the rigorous procedure requirements. That type of evidence is basically like common knowledge or an indisputable fact, for example there are 24 hours in a day. Witnesses, physical, direct, indirect, testimony, expert testimony and opinions, documents and hearsay are other types of evidence. Although the evidence is needed to prove the innocence or guilt of a defendant, evidence must first go through certain processes before it can be used. Therefore, we will continue now with the "rules" of evidence. Before any evidence is admitted it must be relevant. Relevant evidence means having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence (www.law.cornell.edu). Although the evidence is relevant and material, it may not end up in a court room due to the prejudicial nature of it. If it makes the defendant look terrible for another crime he committed ten years ago, the judge does not have to allow the evidence in the current trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence also covers witnesses, testimony, hearsay, as well as the many exceptions to the hearsay rule. Any witness must be and have personal knowledge of the matter at hand to testify. The witness may be an expert or someone with the knowledge of the subject matter. Some witnesses are allowed to give their opinions (medical examiners) and others are not. Finally, the hearsay rule in my opinion is the most complicated. Actually, the rule itself is rather simple, but the exceptions are complex. "Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted". That statement is rather simple and can be understood, unfortunately to many exceptions exist to cover all of them. Most everyone knows that a spouse can not testify against their spouse (with exceptions), a psychologist can not testify against a patient, and a Priest can not testify against a person for their confessions of sins.

Furthermore, Evidence is the information that helps in the formation of a conclusion or judgment. Whether you know it or not, you provide evidence in most of your conversations theyre all the things you say to try and support your claims. For example, when you leave a movie theater, turn to your friend, and say That movie was awesome! Did you see those fight scenes?! Unreal!, you have just made a claim and backed it up. Most people think of evidence as numbers and quotes from famous people. While those are valid types of evidence, there are more to choose from than just statistics and quotes, though. There are four types, to be exact: 1. Statistical Evidence Statistical evidence is the kind of data people tend to look for first when trying to prove a point. Thats not surprising when you consider how prevalent it is in todays society. Remember those McDonalds signs that said Over 1 billion served? How about those Trident chewing gum commercials that say 4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing sugarless gum? Every time you use numbers to support a main point, youre relying on statistical evidence to carry your argument. 2. Testimonial Evidence Testimonial evidence is another type of evidence that is commonly turned to by people trying to prove a point. Commercials that use spokespersons to testify about the quality of a companys product, lawyers who rely on eye-witness accounts to win a case, and students who quote an authority in their essays are all using testimonial evidence. 3. Anecdotal Evidence Often dismissed as untrustworthy and meaningless, anecdotal evidence is one of the more underutilized types of evidence. Anecdotal evidence is evidence that is based on a persons observations of the world. It can actually be very useful for disproving generalizations because all you need is one example that contradicts a claim. Be careful when using this type of evidence to try and support your claims. One example of a non-native English speaker who has perfect grammar does not prove that all non-native English speakers have perfect grammar. All the anecdote can do is disprove the claim that all immigrants who are non-native English speakers have terrible grammar. You can use this type of evidence to support claims, though, if you use it in conjunction with other types of evidence. Personal observations can serve as wonderful examples to introduce a topic and build it up just make sure you include statistical

evidence so the reader of your paper doesnt question whether your examples are just isolated incidents. 4. Analogical Evidence The last type of evidence is called analogical evidence. It is also underutilized, but this time for a reason. Analogies are mainly useful when dealing with a topic that is under-researched. If you are on the cutting edge of an issue, youre the person breaking new ground. When you dont have statistics to refer to or other authorities on the matter to quote, you have to get your evidence from somewhere. Analogical evidence steps in to save the day. Take the following example: You work for a company that is considering turning some land into a theme park. On that land there happens to be a river that your bosses think would make a great whitewater rafting ride. Theyve called on you to assess whether or not that ride would be a good idea. Since the land in question is as yet undeveloped, you have no casualty reports or statistics to refer to. In this case, you can look to other rivers with the same general shape to them, altitude, etc. and see if any white-water rafting casualties have occurred on those rivers. Although the rivers are different, the similarities between them should be strong enough to give credibility to your research. Realtors use the same type of analogical evidence when determining the value of a home. When you use analogies to support your claims, always remember their power.

Q-5

Give any one Case Study or Case Example and mention how Fingerprint Science was important in solving that case? Shirley McKie is a former Scottish police detective who was accused by fingerprint analysis staff of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) of leaving her thumb print on the bathroom door frame of a murder crime-scene in Kilmarnock on 14 January 1997. She denied she had ever been in the house of murder victim Marion Ross, but Detective Constable McKie was initially suspended, then sacked, then arrested by Strathclyde Police in 1998, and tried and acquitted in 1999. A scandal subsequently developed because of allegations of misconduct on the part of the SCRO and the police. With continuing public concern over what became known as the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced in March 2008, that a public inquiry into the case would begin in September of that year (see Fingerprint Inquiry). Case in brief:On 6 January 1997, the body of Marion Ross was found in her home in Kilmarnock. She had been stabbed multiple times during what is presumed to have been an act of housebreaking. David Asbury, a handyman who had once worked on the Ross house, developed as a suspect. A fingerprint found on a tin box in Asbury's home was reported to be that of Marion Ross by examiners at the Scottish Criminal Records Office. The SCRO also reported they had identified a fingerprint found on the gift tag on an unopened Christmas present inside the Ross home as that of David Asbury. While checking other, unidentified fingerprints from the victim's home, examiners reported one of those prints to have been identified as Constable McKie's. During Asbury's murder trial in which he was found guilty, McKie testified she had not been inside the home and could not have left her fingerprint. Because Marion Ross was known to hoard possessions, making it possible for Asbury to have left a print on the gift tag years earlier while he was working at the home, the print on the tin box in Asbury's home became the key piece of evidence in the case against him. McKie's testimony at Asbury's trial that she could not have left a print inside the Ross home implied, if true, that the SCRO examiners were capable of error in a fingerprint comparison. David Asbury was subsequently freed from a life sentence due to questions raised about the identification of the print on the tin box. Other features of the case include allegations that police tried to link Constable McKie to the actual murder and that they conducted a whispering campaign to discredit her, inventing a non-existent affair with a married male detective, and claiming that her denial of ever having been at the murder scene was made in an attempt to cover up a sexual liaison with the detective there.

Ans.

Exonerated of perjury charge:In March 1998, DC McKie was arrested and charged with perjury. However in May 1999, the Scottish jury at the High Court of Justiciary rejected the SCRO's fingerprint evidence and McKie was unanimously found not guilty of perjury. U.S. fingerprint experts Pat Wertheim and David Grieve testified during McKie's trial that the fingerprint inside the Ross house was not McKie's. Compensation suits and payment:McKie sued her employers regarding the manner in which she was arrested. She lost the case against Strathclyde Police in February 2003 and faced a legal bill of 13,000. McKie faced bankruptcy as a result, but an anonymous donor paid the legal bill in June 2004, and McKie was reported to be "absolutely overjoyed". A second civil action was then raised suing the Scottish Executive amongst others on the basis that a malicious prosecution had been caused by dishonesty of the SCRO fingerprint experts. On the morning that this was to be heard, in February 2006, McKie was offered and accepted 750,000 from the Scottish Executive in full settlement of her compensation claim, without admission of liability. The case was then dropped. At an earlier stage of the case against the Scottish Executive the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd argued that expert witnesses should always be immune from prosecution even if they gave false evidence. Parliamentary inquiry:The Scottish parliament decided to refer the McKie case to its Justice 1 Committee whose inquiry began in April 2006 and took evidence from more than 30 witnesses. Ms McKie, accompanied by her father Iain and a team of legal advisers, appeared before the committee of MSPs on 23 May 2006. Her accusers the four SCRO fingerprint officers Hugh Macpherson, Fiona McBride, Anthony McKenna and Charles Stewart appeared a week later on 30 May 2006. The Justice 1 Committee proceeded to request the Scottish Executive to provide it with four McKie case reports: the Mackay report two reports by fingerprint expert, John MacLeod the report by independent expert, Michael Pass Although the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, responded by refusing to release the Mackay report for reasons relating to "fundamental principles of our democracy, including the presumption of innocence", Justice minister Cathy Jamieson agreed to

release to MSPs reports by John MacLeod and Michael Pass. Despite Boyd's refusal, a leaked copy of Mackay's 56-page report was published by the BBC. In September 2006, the four fingerprint officers were reported to have been offered a deal by the SCRO to resign or take early retirement. Their union, Unison, criticised the timing of the offer (before the Justice 1 Committee had reported) and argued that the SCRO officers were being "harassed". The report of the Justice 1 committee of the Scottish parliament published its 230page report on 15 February 2007 (pages 189-190 deal specifically with Ms McKie's outof-court settlement). Public inquiry:Following the out-of-court settlement, Opposition parties in the Scottish parliament called for a public inquiry to be held into the McKie case. In March 2006, Shirley McKie's father, Iain, and Dr Jim Swire, father of Lockerbie bombing victim, Flora, met to launch a campaign for a judicial inquiry which they hoped would investigate recent revelations of a link between the McKie case and the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. After the meeting, Dr Swire said: "The reputation of our country and its criminal justice system will depend upon how these cases are sorted out." However, the Scottish Executive ruled out any question of a judicial inquiry (which has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses) whilst Shirley McKie and her family announced their campaign for a public inquiry would end on 9 January 2007 exactly ten years after the Marion Ross murder investigation began: "We have given ten years of our lives to this and we are not giving any more. It is the politicians' job now to do something about it," said her father, Iain McKie. "It is not our role to fight for justice: it is their role." In October 2008, it was announced that a public inquiry into the case led by former Northern Ireland judge Sir Anthony Campbell is to meet in Glasgow. A procedural hearing was scheduled for 21 November 2008 and proceedings started in June 2009. Inquiry proceedings:Sir Anthony Campbell opened the inquiry proceedings at 10.30 am on Tuesday 2 June 2009 in Maryhill Community Central Hall, Glasgow. Following Sir Anthony's introductory statement, senior counsel to the inquiry, Gerry Moynihan QC, made a public

presentation of all the material that has been collected. Thereafter, lawyers for the core participants were expected to make their opening statements.