COVID-19 NOTICE: Sutnick & Sutnick Attorneys at Law remains open to serve the legal needs of our clients, and for consultations with potential clients, safely via phone, email, or videoconference. Let’s all stay healthy and safe.

Sutnick & Sutnick Attorneys at Law's Blog

Sutnick & Sutnick Attorneys at Law's Blog

The use of forensic evidence

| Apr 6, 2021 | Blog |

The use of forensic evidence in criminal cases is a practice that is often applied by prosecutors in New Jersey and the rest of the country. And while television has assuredly done more than its part in its overuse and false perception of infallibility, the fact is that each forensic article should still be weighed for validity.

The perception that forensic evidence is somehow magically accurate in all instances is not true nor is it even grounded in science. This confusion and false perception for those who are potential jurors present a significant challenge for many criminal defense attorneys who must evaluate all evidence being used in a prosecution.

Why forensic evidence is overused

Forensic evidence is largely used in prosecution because many novice jurors are already preconditioned to believe it is perfect and that technicians are experts who cannot be questioned in a criminal defense presentation. However, the truth is that science may not always support the charge.

Using evidence such as fingerprints and toxicology reports is a significant advantage for prosecutors who are ultimately politicians first and lawyers second. They are focused on conviction rates primarily because it is a tool to keep them in their positions of power with full employment perks.

How criminal defense attorneys can establish reasonable doubt

One of the most common examples of forensic evidence used in criminal prosecutions can be found in DUI cases. Many contemporary cases are prosecuted using blood analysis of those who are suspected of DUI when no alcohol is found present in a breathalyzer test.

The breathalyzer machine is a calibrated tool that establishes blood alcohol concentration at the time of an arrest. Blood tests do not address latency in any respect, and the mere fact that a chemical is present in a suspect’s system does not mean they were intoxicated at the time of the arrest. The issue is actually effective concentration, not just presence, which gives criminal defense lawyers a foundation for building an argument establishing reasonable doubt.

Never accept the concept that forensic evidence in your criminal charge cannot be contested. It could be in your best interest to retain an aggressive criminal defense attorney who understands how to fight forensic evidence charges when crafting an argument for reasonable doubt.

Archives

FindLaw Network