Do Juries actually examine forensic evidence?

Question

Before finding someone guilty, or do they take the word of the Forensic Team?

Is it nopt possible that these 'experts' working for the prosecution can be corrupt?

Answer 1

forensic investigators gives the result and all finding of the case so the juries will addjust its judgement to that its up to the forensic result

Answer 2

It depends what you mean by 'examine'. Most of the expert evidence given by a forensic scientist will be based on detailed and complex laboratory analysis on materials that have been recovered from a scene of a crime, victim's and suspects.

It can also include examinations made at the actual scene, For example, bloodstain distributions and fires. When the expert is called to give evidence he/she will present the results and then give an expert view or opinion on what they mean. Only expert witnesses can give an opinion in this way.

The jury are composed of lay people. Of course, they could not do the actual laboratory examinations thenselves and they cannot form an experty opinion about them. Thus the jury do not examine the evidence.

However, they will have copies of the expert witnesses report in the form a statement. This can include diagrams, drawings, photographs and sometimes models. They will also see the items (exhibits) that have been examined.

An expert witness has to present evidence in a form that can be understood by the jury. This is sometimes difficult because of the complex scientifc nature of what is involved. Barristers questions will ensure that the expert forensic facts and opinions are understood by a jury. Judges also intervene with their own questions to ensure this happens

By the very nature of forensic evidence a lay jury has to accept what an expert says. However, experts do not always agree. Then they must decide whose opinion is correct.

It is always dangerous for a jury to decide a case on one or two pieces of evidence, whether that is expert evidnce or
not. A judge will address this when he sums up a case before a jury retire to decide.

Sometimes an appeal aginst a guilty verdict is made when too much weight has been given to forensic evidence. That is exactly what is happening in the Jill Dando case at the moment.

Hope this has helped.

Answer 3

The real answer to your questions is yes (to both). Juries do get to see the evidence and examine it. If forensic testing has been run on the item, then an expert witness will testify as to what the test entails, what it proves, and the results. A jury may choose to believe or disbelieve the expert, as they would any witness.

I'll give you some examples:
1) Drugs: the actual drugs are entered into evidence, and the jury gets to examine them, handle them, etc. They can even take the drugs back into the jury room during deliberations. However, we have to prove that the drugs are really what we allege (marijuana, cocaine, etc.). For that, we can the expert come to court, explain the tests and the positive results.
2) DNA: The jury gets to see the bedsheet, clothing, etc., that the DNA sample was taken from. Since this has biological matter on it, it is usually in clear plastic and they wear gloves when handling. Then the expert takes the stand to interpret the results of the testing.


Hope this helps. It's the most accurate answer you've gotten so far.

Answer 4

Jury's do not get to examine and touch the evidence themselves. The attorneys bring the evidence to them at the bench and show them, then the attorney describes and does whatever he/she can to help the jury have a better understanding about the case and the evidence. Usually the evidence is in a plasic bag or carefully being handles by the attorney or a forensics scientist while its being shown

Answer 5

It would be unusual for a jury to physically handle forensic evidence - contamination might, for example, prejudice a retrial should one prove necessary.
However the judge may approve such an activity if he deems it helpful in the search for truth.
Juries sometimes visit the scene of an alleged crime.
Much forensic evidence could not be practically handled - e.g. DNA specimens - nor could one imagine that such a procedure would be of benefit.

Answer 6

A jury can always ask to look at the physical evidence if they wish, but as it is usually just a blob in a jar it won't mean anything; that's why expert witnesses are used, to explain what was found and what it all means.

Answer 7

i don't understand approximately British regulation yet interior the states, the info consistently must be shared with the opposing social gathering, it is called discovery, i think of. It supplies them a raffle to describe/tutor why the info isn't conclusive. Or to tutor why that's deceptive. contained on the subject of Maddy's DNA interior the vehicle 25 days later, it is been defined that it have been given there by way of circulate while the McCanns moved out of the condominium. regrettably, some people won't pay interest to this tidbit and proceed to declare it proves they hid her physique for 25 days. by means of fact after all, it is extremely straightforward to hid a physique, ya understand....

Answer 8

No, they dont physically examine the evidence...the scientist gives his verbal evidence and presents any exhibits, and is cross examined and as in any case it is up to the jury to decide how much weight to place on that evidence, and whether or not it is truthful.....but physically examine the evidence no....unless it is something the layman could see with his own eyes.

Answer 9

I would think you have to rely on the expertise of the forensic team. How many jurors would understand such complex procedures anyway. They may be shewn it but that would be as far as it goes.
I have been a juror twice and on one occasion was allowed to handle a knife used in a stabbing, on that case nobody died.