|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910452317903321 |
|
|
Autore |
Shelton Donald E |
|
|
Titolo |
Forensic science evidence [[electronic resource] ] : can the law keep up with science? / / Donald E. Shelton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
El Paso, Tex., : LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (281 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Criminal justice : recent scholarship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Evidence, Expert - United States |
Forensic sciences - United States |
Evidence, Criminal - United States |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
CONTENTS; Acknowledgements; Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Historical Development of Forensic Scientific Evidence; Chapter 3: Admissibility Foundation Questions - The DaubertTrilogy; Chapter 4: Admissibility of Social Science Evidence in CriminalCases; Chapter 5: Pretrial Forensic Issues; Chapter 6: DNA Evidence; Chapter 7: Fingerprint Evidence; Chapter 8: Handwriting Comparison; Chapter 9: Hair Analysis; Chapter 10: Bite Mark Analysis; Chapter 11: Toolmarks, Firearms, and Bullet Lead Comparison; Chapter 12: Fire, Explosion and Arson Evidence; Chapter 13: Bloodstain Pattern Evidence |
Chapter 14: Human Scent EvidenceChapter 15: Juror Expectations about Scientific Evidence; Chapter 16: Summary and Conclusions; Chapter 17: Thoughts about the Future of Criminal ForensicScience; Appendix: Recommendations of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (2009); Bibliography and Table of Cases; Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
Shelton describes the startling questions that have arisen about the reliability of many forms of scientific evidence which were traditionally regarded as reliable and have been routinely admitted to prove guilt. The exonerations resulting from the development of DNA have exposed the lack of truswortiness of much of the ""scientific"" evidence that was used to convict people who turned out to be innocent. The |
|
|
|
|