User talk:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/ Seminar Group 8/GroupEvidence

OUR IDEA RIGHT NOW: 11.27.18 ((check))

INTRODUCTION...on how eye-witness testimonies are an unreliable source of evidence (THE OBVIOUS).

BODY...introduce our focus on DNA evidence and its PROS AND CONS!!!

CONCLUSION...re-evaluating scientific evidence; science is not the ultimate truth! so... we need to be cautious.

RESOURCE for DNA evidence CON SIDE (this is good yayyyy) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/ --Uclqiya (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

- Julius Earl Ruffin - Wrongfully accused of rape due to wrong eye witness (https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253) - Psychological reasons to unreliable testimonies.

- Bias in forensic science

- Conclusion --> being cautious of putting our full trust in scientific evidence. Reevaluating our grounds in order to make better judgement. Hbcoste (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What I think is helpful from the section I wrote in the Evidence sandbox-Ibuki Please take a look and we can kind of solidify our idea!

Evidence in Law
Evidence in Law is based around the compilation of tangible or immaterial objects related to a specific crime which in time is to be ratified by a jury or used for the purpose of investigation. Needless to mention, the use of evidence in law is heavily significant to determine the truth and whether the suspect is guilty of the crime or not. Hence, admissible evidence is strictly governed throughout the course of judicial processes;this is also known to be the Federal rules of Evidence. These rules exist to avoid potential distraction of the court, preventing the introduction of distracting facts to the jury. One important criteria that evidence in law is assessed on, is relevance. This simply means that the there must be a logical connection between the presented evidence and the premise that it is trying to make. Although this relevancy of evidence plays a huge rule through evidence law, it is not the only criteria; relevant evidence might be excluded due to existing prejudice and cumulative. Another guideline in evidence law, are rules against opinions. Opinions can be shared in the court throughout hearsay and testimony; both can provide eye witnesses or general statements made by an individual. They are personal thoughts; hence, they cannot be perceived and used as evidence. Reasons for this unreliability of testimonies include multiple fallacies of evidence (more outlined below) such as the ad-hominem fallacy, where a person possesses an opinion that attacks the individual, rather than their argument. This fallacy is also another reason why there are strict regulations against permitting character evidence to be used in court. The jury has the right to neglect any testimonies or hearsays that are opinion-based rather than facts. Moreover, the character evidence tends to be weak as people do not often act in a certain way accordingly to their perceived characteristics and personality. Witnesses testimonies in general, are highly influenced by their distorted memory which can be effected from traumas or post-event information, which is why they are likely to lead to misjudged statements about the person.

Types of evidence in Law
Usually in the form of a physical object; this form of evidence is a common form of proof used in court cases. Some examples include photographs, footage, audio tapes, etc. This type of evidence has increased over these few years as of the development of electronic devices and technology. Digital evidence refers to proof that is taken from an electric source, such as emails, hard drives, ATM recordings, etc. Refers to evidence that favors the accused, either supporting their innocence or in some cases, completely prove it. Such evidence is typically presented in criminal cases. Evidence that is so strong and sufficient that it can prove a certain preposition to be true, but is refutable by later evidence.
 * Demonstrative Evidence
 * Digital Evidence
 * Exculpatory Evidence
 * Prima Facie Evidence

Scientific Evidence in Law
Scientific evidence is developed from knowledge that is gained through scientific methods. In general, forensic evidence such as genetic hair evidence, DNA matching, fingerprint identifications, etc. are considered as scientific evidence. These evidence presented to the court, are usually beyond the knowledge that the jury has, and is therefore, labeled as scientific evidence. Scientific Evidence that is authorized and admitted by a scientific community, can be presented in court as evidence as long as its reliability is insured by the jury. In order for the scientific evidence to be approved before it is presented to the court, the data (which the evidence is based on) must be published or present in scientific journals and assessed by scientific peers who are qualified. This is a significant and crucial part of the process, as it is the only method to check the validity of scientific methods and reliability of their findings. This general process in which scientific evidence is accepted in law courts, is known and can be explained through the Frye test.This type of test was derived from the case of James Frye who was put on trial for murder in 1923; Frye v. United States (1923). During his testimony for defense, he provided a testimony of an expert who proved that Frye was speaking of truth when he rejected culpability, through a blood pressure test that determined if he was lying or not. This test which involved a scientific method, became the standard for most testimonial judgements at the time, meaning that the evidence given by the Frye test gained scientific consensus, in other words, general acceptance from the scientific community in which the expert's specialty existed in. The Frye Test thereby pertains to the admissibility of testimony relied on scientific methods.

However, the Frye test was no longer acknowledged as the criteria to access scientific evidence, as the United States Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. , was introduced in 1993. The Daubert test projects the admissibility of testimonies by scientific experts like the Frye test, although it has a new set of criteria for itself, which became the standard at this time. There are four main factors for admissibility of expert testimony in the [Daubert test]. First, if the scientific methods that the testimonies are based on, are established upon a testable hypothesis. Testable, also implying that the hypotheses are actually 'tested' throughout the process. Second, the level of potential errors of the methods. Third, if the methods have been through peer assessment or not. Fourth, whether the methods are admitted and approved by scientific communities or not. The first two criteria of the Daubert test was established by Daubert, and centers its focus on tested and hypothesized scientific evidence, requiring expert testimony to be derived from 'scientific methods'. The Court's discussion about scientific methods mentions this necessity of hypotheses and testing as follows:Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry. Hypothesis testing is the derivation of a certain proposition that is set in regards to an observational event/s from scientific principles, that is, through investigation and evaluation of observational data, decided to be true or not. As hypothesis testing has the ability to distinguish non-scientific methods to scientific methods of inquiry, Daubert test is utilized as a proxy for admissibility of scientific evidence, and is applied in the Federal Rules of Evidence as well.

I THINK it's essential that the conclusion underlines the issue that many face which is the fact that we have a tendency to rely only on ones side (here: eye-witness testimony or scientific evidence). TO underline the importance of acquiring a balanced out look which allows to look at the "bigger picture" if one can say that. --> To improve the conditions of the court maybe we need to be aware of both sides (educate ourselves on the way adding up different "domains"/"subjects" can allow us to have a better perspective on an issue and make a fairer judgment). Hbcoste (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)