The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases

Sherlock Holmes with his lens and his theories probably has afforded considerably more entertainment to readers of his unique experiences than he has created serious thinking on their part as to the practicability of actually applying such methods and techniques in detecting crime, and in utilizing in criminal trials the evidence resulting therefrom. Other detectives of the fiction world, with the possible exception of Doctor Thorndyke, have done still less to arouse more genuine interest in scientific methods of crime detection. We have been content, it seems, to keep such figures within the veil of our imagination and to reconcile ourselves to ordinary police methods when attempting to solve a crime involving unconventional tactics or motives, to say nothing of the more usual type, in which the scientific approach is equally desirable. Only quite recently has there been any indication of a change in attitude, and this has resulted from the unrelenting pioneering efforts of relatively few individuals qualified to render scientific assistance to law enforcement agencies. The general notion has become a little more widespread, but considered in terms of what might be accomplished the era of scientific evidence has only begun. During this somewhat transitory period the judiciary, along with the police of this country, is receiving considerable criticism from some quarters for not utilizing to any greater extent the assistance which scientists are prepared to offer in this field. In partial defense for this position a police officer is often prepared to say: "What good are your scientific methods if the facts we obtain by using them are inadmissible as evidence?" He is, as a general rule, entirely unfamiliar with the legal status of testimony or facts of a scientific nature, and his conclusion of inadmissibility is very often erroneous-and even in instances where he is correct he frequently fails to appreciate the advantage of the scientific approach for investigative purposes alone. The layman is still more apt to find the courts responsible for not offering more encouragement to the scientist and to the police in this respect. Lawyers themselves often display guilty complexes when such discussions arise, but they too seem oblivious to the fact that in many of the recorded opinions of the appellate courts of this