Forensic evidence is often hailed as automatic material evidence in Pennsylvania courts. Forensics are so important that many metropolitan police departments actually have a forensics unit handling difficult criminal investigations. Prosecutors often use forensics evidence even in seemingly minor criminal cases because it may help them arrive at the truth of what actually transpired. However, this type of evidence can sometimes be misleading.
Evaluating forensic evidence
One of the first problems with forensic evidence is that it is minuscule by definition. It cannot be distinctly observed by people without equipment enhancement such as a microscope. Chemical testing can be performed, including DNA evaluation and blood analysis, but the fact that the evidence was obtained through scientific means does not mean that reasonable doubt cannot play a role in final adjudication. Proving inaccuracy is not impossible, and it is commonly a central component of a comprehensive criminal defense.
Defending against forensic evidence
Not only can forensic evidence be determined inaccurate, but the analytic equipment that is used in evidence identification can be evaluated as well. For example, a Breathalyzer that has not been calibrated according to schedule might result in evidence being declared inadmissible in a criminal defense argument. While DNA evidence is more difficult to defend, superficial wound analysis such as bite marks may be dismissed when evidence does not match up perfectly. A defense attorney may point out inconsistencies to establish reasonable doubt regarding the defendant’s alleged crimes.
Never assume there is no defense for a criminal case based on forensic evidence. Details matter significantly, and issues with forensics might lead to a solid defense for a person accused of a crime.