Legal storytelling in pre-trial investigations: arguing for a wider perspective on forensic evidence

Abstract

Forensic evidence, and most prominently DNA evidence, is often understood as particularly reliable and "objective." However, just as other evidence, forensic evidence must be interpreted and thus made meaningful in order to "say" something about a defendant's culpability. This paper discusses how meaning is created from and around forensic evidence: in criminal trials, evidence is placed in legally meaningful narratives that draw upon well-known cultural scripts and categories and that associate (or disassociate) a defendant with legal categories and consequences. The paper will demonstrate that these stories are not only told in court as a means of arguing a case, but are also continuously told and re-shaped during pre-trial investigations, as evidence in a case is assembled and assessed. Consequently, I argue that, in order to understand forensic evidence, it is just as important to pay attention to pretrial investigations as it is to study forensic laboratories and courtroom interactions.

The Persuasive Powers of DNA: An Experimental Study in Perceptions of Expert Evidence

“…And, the manner in which DNA is described is important for how jurors evaluate it. Studies have identified that jurors use pieces of evidence to formulate a "story" of the case in their heads; they tend to be more convinced by the same evidence when provided anecdotally and in reference to specific cases than when provided in more abstract terms (Bornstein, 2004;Kruse, 2012).…”

“…It was once characterized in a It is, of course, difficult to argue against the power of DNA to incriminate the guilty, or deny its crucial role in exculpating the innocent, but like all powerful tools it has the capacity to produce undesirable consequences (Edmond, 2011; GoodmanDelahunty & Tait, 2006; Kirby, 2010;Langdon & Wilson, 2005;Lynch, 2013;McCartney, 2006). In the wake of the claim last century that little is known "about how laypersons respond to DNA evidence" (National Research Council, 1996), the body of research in this area has expanded significantly, providing knowledge about the weight that legal decision makers assign to it in forensic settings (Briody, 2003; GoodmanDelahunty & Hewson, 2010;Goodman-Delahunty & Wakabayashi, 2012;Findlay, 2008;Koehler, 2001;Koehler & Macchi, 2004;Kruse, 2012;Lynch, 2013;Smith & Bull, 2012;Smith, et. al., 2011;Wheate, 2006;.…”

O detetive híbrido: inovação tecnológica e tradição na investigação criminal

“…A prova científica tida como objetiva e neutra surge para os inspetores como algo que poderá dar credibilidade e legitimidade às suas convicções e ações SHEARING, 1986;MARTIN, 2003), sendo assim necessária para evidenciar a "versão" da polícia (KRUSE, 2012;McCARTNEY, 2006). As novas tecnologias geram imenso entusiasmo e podem assim alterar o modo como as instituições de justiça criminal, nomeadamente a polícia "will make their decisions based on scientific knowledge rather than guesswork, prejudice, or intuition" (COLE, 2001, p. 303 e o sexo (10 do sexo masculino e 4 do sexo feminino).…”

Making sense of the story – the dialogues between the police and forensic laboratories in the construction of DNA evidence

“…In an inquisitorial justice system, the police, the prosecution, the judges, and also the laboratories, are all regarded as fully impartial (Kruse 2012). In this judicial edifice, trial judges are legally considered to be the ultimate expert in evaluating and interpreting the evidence brought before the court.…”

“…These reports are most informative regarding the ways in which the criminal narrative is developed, containing the known "facts" and the speculative outlines of "what happened", and what is missing from the story. I will use the expression "criminal narrative" in the same manner that Jasanoff (2006) or Kruse (2012) refer to the use of familiar cultural and professional story templates in order to "make sense" of the actors and their actions, and also to interpret the evidence. This is similar to the way Dahl (2007) uses the metaphor of the "jigsaw puzzle" to illustrate the development of a criminal case and the role of DNA in the courtroom, but also to describe the process of construction of DNA evidence.…”