A staple on television shows these days are the various Crime Scene Investigation programs, set in various cities and purporting to feature the latest in modern scientific techniques. As a practical matter, the Maryland Courts have specific rules as to how such evidence in criminal cases (and civil ones as well) can be admitted, as illustrated by some recent cases in the Maryland appellate courts.
One of the recent opinions, Clemons v. State, involves a technique known as Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). The victim was shot ten times by a handgun, and the next day Clemons was arrested when a gun was found in a search of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. The gun was consistent with the type of weapon that killed the deceased, and a witness later identified Clemons as the shooter from a photographic line up. Although Clemons was acquitted of gun possession charges in the federal court, he was tried for second degree murder and weapons offenses in Maryland state court.
At trial, the State called an expert from the FBI, who testified to his analysis of the bullets found with the gun and those from the victim. Using the CBLA technique, he was allowed to testify over defense objection that the bullets from the victim were likely from the same vat of lead as those found in the gun. The defense called a retired FBI metallurgy expert who said that CBLA analysis was not scientifically valid, was controversial in the scientific literature, and no longer being used by the FBI. The jury convicted Clemons anyway, and his case went up to Maryland’s highest court.
The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. It discussed the standard in Maryland for determining whether novel scientific or technical evidence should be admitted in court, even if the trial judge holds that the witness is qualified as an expert to give an opinion that may be helpful to the jury. The test, known as the Frye-Reed test after two older cases, holds that scientific evidence is admissible only if the court finds that it is generally accepted in the scientific community.
Though the trial judge has discretion in making this judgment call, the Appellate Court reviewed the scientific literature and held that CBLA was not generally accepted and therefore the jury should not have heard any opinions about it. In so doing, the Court noted that such evidence can have powerful weight with a jury. The State will have to try to convict the defendant at a new trial, if it chooses to, without use of such evidence.
The most recent case on such forensic evidence, Fullbright v. State, was a win for the prosecution on appeal. Perhaps recognizing that people have come to expect high tech evidence in criminal cases, the State offered testimony from a police officer in an assault case as to why no fingerprint analysis was ordered of the bloody knife found at the crime scene. The officer had not been identified before trial as a potential fingerprinting expert, and was not qualified as one at trial.
The appellate court agreed with the trial judge that the officer’s testimony was proper, and affirmed the conviction. The Court said the testimony was not that of a fingerprinting expert used to prove an element of the crime. Instead, when the officer testified that prints are difficult to get from wet, bloody objects he was simply explaining police procedure.
While science can thus be important in the court room, the courts are careful not to let it do away with more old fashioned police work and eye witness testimony. Prosecutors worry that juries expect a TV show in every case, and may need to explain why CSI isn’t all there is to criminal justice.