| Zusammenfassung: | This study collection sought to thoroughly understand the creation, testing, and use of forensic science in five jurisdictions across the country. A random sample was selected of recent criminal cases in the following jurisdictions and tracked from investigation to adjudication to understand how forensic evidence functions: <ul> <li>Sacramento County, CA: 990 cases</li> <li>Segwick County, KS: 936 cases</li> <li>Allegheny County, PA: 978 cases</li> <li>Bexar County (San Antonio), TX: 936 cases</li> <li>King County, WA: 892 cases</li> </ul> The Principal Investigator sought answers to the following seven primary research questions: <ul> <li>How often is forensic evidence collected and analyzed and how is it used pre-arrest?</li> <li>What are the outcomes of forensic evidence testing?</li> <li>What is the effect of forensic evidence on arrest and charging?</li> <li>How does forensic evidence affect the plea-bargaining process?</li> <li>What effect does forensic evidence have on conviction and sentencing outcomes?</li> <li>Does the turnaround time for analysis of forensic evidence have any impact on case disposition?</li> <li>Does the institutional configuration of the crime laboratory have any effect on its productivity?</li> </ul> Data for the following types of forensic testing are included in this data collection: hair, fibers, glass, paint, gas chromatography / mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy / energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX), physical match, drug identification, toxicology, serology, combined DNA index system (CODIS), DNA short tandem repeat (Y-STR), blood pattern, test fire, and comparison scope.
|
|---|
