.. 43.
’4’}. .9.

49..

 

 

,..... ..
I“ w

u- u."

 

34

‘5
*5! P'
w}

1.: 9“ q
fa ’ :1“

$55293

2? x
i", . 2 . '
fi‘ééfi? j"

‘5

cr‘.,4-

.
.
”a,
... 3:32
In“

4

99'

35 .
‘ 2:1
a“:

.
.f v:
..
"czar

.. M.
~23

.-

.‘w.
-
n. u

m .. .

.. .
.u
. .
é
.. .n.
9..

’15-

...u

4'
mV'"

0
.w

1'2"

3
r ‘17. a
“13.06

.. ....

22.. :2"
J.»"‘S‘.‘ #3;

Wu!“

H1!-

:93
. i...» ‘
g

. “11!.
"flew

’ : ééiqz
Effigy-

1;“ ;

as“
.

554g; 453 g?
‘5' his;
. "W‘fi

.l,
.-
D

3’:

K
ff

1.

‘?
'3 33' 35"";
“5‘ .

Jig;

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

mess lllllllllllLllllzlllllJlHillJlIlHlllHllUllllllilllllllllfll

2 01559 2615

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHOSECUTION OF FELONY
CASES: A STUDY OF FORENSIC AND NON-FOREN SIC
EVIDENCE IN INGHAM COUNTYFELONY CASES

presented by

M. Katherine Voelker

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS. . Criminal Justice

degree 111

 

 

 

U rajor professma

Date December 13, 1996

 

011639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE It RETURN BOXtoromovothbcInckoutIrom your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU lsAn AIflrrndivo Action/Equal Opportunity lmtituion
Walla-9.!

 

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN THE PROSECUTION OF FELONY CASES: A STUDY OF
FORENSIC AND NON-FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN INGHAM COUNTY FELONY CASES

By

M. Katherine Voelker

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Criminal Justice

I996

ABSTRACT

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN THE PROSECUTION OF FELONY CASES: A STUDY OF
FORENSIC AND NON-FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN INGHAM COUNTY FELONY CASES

By

M. Katherine Voelker

The purpose of this study was to determine how often physical evidence
(forensic and non-forensic evidence) is collected in felony prosecution cases
and its relationship to crime type and the case outcomes. The methodology
consisted of content analysis of 1303 lngham County Circuit Court felony cases
closed in l992. After excluding drug and drunk driving cases, analysis was
conducted on 905 cases with frequency distributions, contingency tables, chi-
square and correlation coefficients. Physical evidence was collected in 78% of
the cases. Non—forensic evidence was collected more than forensic evidence.
The forensic evidence types most analyzed were latent prints, alcohol and
blood. Trace evidence was the least common forensic evidence. The only
statistical relationship was between crime type and impression evidence with a
weak degree of association. There was no statistical relationship between
physical evidence and charge one outcome and a slight relationship between

physical evidence and charge two outcome.

0rd

(0..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I extend a heartfelt thanks to lngham County Prosecutor Donald
Martin and his staff. Everyone was extremely helpful and accommodating.
Without the graciousness in allowing me to use the case files and office space,
the completion of this thesis could not have been possible. I give a special show
of gratitude to staff members Donald Backhaus and Roberto Faibor for their time
and assistance.

Next, I wish to express a sincere gratitude to my thesis committee for
giving me their attention, time and advice during this long process. I thank my
advisor and senior committee member, Dr. Jay Siegel for his knowledge and
generosity during my graduate studies and thesis work. I thank Dr. Frank Horvath
for giving me guidance and support during some of the more difficult thesis
situations. And, I thank Dr. Christopher Smith for giving his time and suggestions
that aided in the completion of this thesis.

I also wish to thank the two undergraduate students, Troy Ernst and Ray
Vazquez, who assisted me in collecting data. I give a special thanks to Dr. Irena
Grofova for her encouragement, support and especially for her generosity.

Finally, I wish to extend my thanks and gratitude to my family and friends

for their never ending love, support and patience. Thank you.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. I
Overview of Report ................................................................................. 4

CHAPTER I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................... 5
Physical Evidence in the Criminal Justice System ....................................... 5
Research on Physical Evidence ................................................................ 9

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 16
Analysis ............................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 34
Rate of Physical Evidence ...................................................................... 34
Physical Evidence Rates Distributed in Type of Crime ............................... 37
Rates of Usage of Each Forensic Evidence Type ....................................... 38
The Rate and Effect of The Types of Forensic Evidence in Type of Crime....4l
Physical Evidence and the Disposition of Felony Cases ............................. 45
Summary ............................................................................................. 50

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 52

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES ...................................................... 59

APPENDIX A

CODEBOOK FOR PROSECUTOR CASE FILES ..................................................... 6]

APPENDIX B

CATEGORIES OF TYPES OF CRIMES ................................................................... 85

APPENDIX C

UNIFORM CRIME REPORT: INDEX AND NON-INDEX CRIMES ............................... 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 88

iv

ICC?
Tab.
Tab
Tab!
Tab

 

 

 

‘h l
54'

To

his:

LIST OF TABLES

Table I Categories of Types of Crimes ........................................................... 27
Table 2 Charge Result---le4 ........................................................................ 30

Table 3 Physical Evidence in the Data with and without Drug and OUIL Cases...35

Table 4 Frequencies of Type of Crime ............................................................ 36
Table 5 Distribution of Physical Evidence by Type of Crime .............................. 37
Table 6 Instances of Each Forensic Evidence Type .......................................... 39
Table 7 Cases with Classified Forensic Evidence Types .................................... 40
Table 8 Impression Evidence and Type of Crime ............................................ 4]
Table 9 Trace Evidence and Type of Crime .................................................... 43
Table IO Serology Evidence and Type of Crime .............................................. 44
Table I I Toxicology Evidence and Type of Crime .......................................... 44
Table I2 Questioned Document Evidence and Type of Crime ......................... 45
Table I3 Total Number of Charges for the Primary Defendant of a Case ........... 46
Table I4 Physical Evidence and Charge 1 Results .......................................... 47
Table 15 Physical Evidence and Charge l Trial Results .................................... 48
Table 16 Physical Evidence and Charge 2 Results .......................................... 49
Table I7 Physical Evidence and Charge 2 Trial Results .................................... 50

 

Av
S»

I»
I e"
v I.

 

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to examine the use of physical evidence in
felony cases and its effect on those cases. Felony cases were examined to
determine the extent to which physical evidence was found in these cases.
Then, two types of physical evidence, forensic and non-forensic evidence, were
isolated to determine the extent at which the forensic evidence was collected
and analyzed. There was an emphasis on the scientifically analyzed forensic
evidence and its rate of use.

Forensic evidence is considered to be evidence of a physical nature
which is dependent on scientific analysis to determine identification and its
relation to persons or things. For example, a bullet of unknown origin, removed
from a victim, may be compared with expelled bullets of known origin to
determine the weapon the unknown bullet was fired from.

Non-forensic evidence is considered to be evidence of a physical nature
with relevance to the case but does not need to be scientifically analyzed for
identification. For example, a victim describes the assailant as a man wearing a
blue and red jacket with a patch on the right sleeve. A jacket matching the
victim's description is worn by a suspect. The jacket can then be collected by
the police and held as evidence in the case. It has relevance to the case but

there is no need for scientific analysis to identify it.

 

 

 

 

evid
1 1C
pnj.

dEsp

Ordé

Incri

Grin"
IDVe
Pia

IOTT‘

CIISC

2

A lot of time and money is spent in the criminal justice system for the
collection of physical evidence especially on the analysis of the forensic
evidence. Therefore, this study was conducted to see in how many cases
physical evidence was collected and whether it has an influence on the
disposition of felony cases. Another purpose of this study was to show how often
forensic evidence types occur in particular types of crimes.

Evidence can play an important role in the criminal justice system. It is
found in many forms. It can be the words of testimony from victims and
witnesses. Evidence can also be of a physical nature such as a fingerprint on a
glass, a bloody knife or a stolen car. Detectives use physical evidence to
reconstruct the crime in order to identify and link a suspect to a crime.
Prosecutors use physical evidence to corroborate other evidence to prove a
defendant is the perpetrator of a crime. Defense attorneys use evidence in
order to prove the innocence of their clients. Evidence has the potential to
incriminate or exculpate suspects in a crime. Valuable characteristics of
physical evidence are its ability to show that a crime has been committed,
identify the suspects and/or exonerate the innocent.

It is easy to presume that physical evidence plays an important role in the
criminal justice system. The media typically represents it as the backbone of an
investigation and an essential element in solving a crime. Sherlock Holmes
characterized it as ‘elementary'. Modern crime stories on television or in films
romanticize it by creating suspense. They use physical evidence as a climactic

discovery which undeniably identifies the guilty person and solves the crime.

 

 

 

o crit
prOC

reali

On"
[I

I0 II

3

Real life situations, such as the O. J. Simpson trial, fortify the concept that
a criminal case relies on physical evidence. How could it not, with its extensive
procession of expert witnesses and forensic evidence? Objectively, one must
realize this was an extraordinary case of a very violent crime with the defendant
being a person of notable wealth and fame. Therefore, one ought to wonder
how this example of physical evidence use truly fit into the scheme of reality — a
reality consisting of thousands of other crimes of less violence and much less
notoriety.

Therefore, this study has several objectives in order to discover the role
physical evidence plays in felony prosecutions. The objectives of this study were

to identify:

I. The rate that physical evidence is collected in felony prosecution
cases.

2. The rate of collected physical evidence distributed by the type of
crime.

3. The rate each individual forensic evidence type was analyzed.

4. The rate that each type of forensic evidence is used in the type of
crime as well as the relationship between forensic evidence and the
type of crime.

5. The effect physical evidence has on the disposition of felony cases

 

 

Ovel

W—-
C
V“
.—+
/\

e‘ie

bec

Overview of Thesis

The review of literature addresses physical evidence uses in the criminal
justice system. It also describes the few research projects relating the use and
effects of physical evidence. The methods used and results found in each will
be discussed.

The methodology section of this report defines the sample and
population. It gives background information about the data collection site. It
explains the methods of data collection for the specific variables used in the
analysis of the data. It defines the variables. The techniques of analysis are also
described.

The results are tabulated and described in chapter 4. In chapter 5, results
are discussed and compared with the results of previous studies. Also,

recommendations and suggestions for future studies are offered.

Chapter 1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A review of criminal justice literature contains conclusions of how and why
physical evidence is used as well as to the discretionary powers of prosecutors to
use such evidence. The first section of this chapter is a brief overview of the
criminal justice system’s use of physical evidence. The second half of the
chapter is a review of the specific research studies that most closely resemble

this study.

Physical Evidence in the Criminal Justice System
Prosecutors are reliant on police investigators for information relevant to a

crime. Prosecutors need evidence to determine whether a suspect will be
charged with a crime and how to proceed with the case, as in negotiating a
plea bargain or taking it to trial. In Trial Preparation for Prosecutors, Marcus
states that prosecutors “reject the case if more work [investigation] is needed"
(I989, p.l8). During an investigation the officer has a lot of discretion about the
collection of evidence. As stated by Peterson:

The patrol officer, the crime scene evidence technician and the

detective all play important roles in determining which crime

scenes are investigated for evidence, what physical evidence is

collected and which items are ultimately examined in the
laboratory (I984, p.24).

6

Situations which can have an effect on decisions of evidence collection are:
type of crime (personal or property), amount of physical interaction, location of
the crime, witnesses present, as well as any traces of actions and the sites of
interactions between the perpetrator and the victim.

Greenwood et. al (I977), Eck (I983), Ericson (I981) and others indicate
that physical evidence is not used often in criminal investigations. Peterson (I982
and I986) agrees that it is not used in a high percentage of criminal cases. But,
when physical evidence is collected, the majority of it is collected for crimes
against a person (homicide, rape and assault). In general, Peterson found that
the more a victim was physically injured the more evidence types were
collected (Peterson, I984). This is due to the greater interaction between the
victim and assailant, as well as, the higher motivation by the officers to solve the
more serious crime. On the other hand, property crimes tend to be less often
examined for physical evidence. But, it is suggested that it is not unheard of for
evidence technicians to arbitrarily look for prints and other evidence at burglary
scene to pacify the victim. This is a result of the victim believing that the police
must look for physical evidence to solve the crime. It also makes the victim feel
that the police are taking his/her case seriously.

Physical evidence can establish an element of a crime. Cases of drugs,
rape, and arson need physical evidence to even determine if a crime has
actually been committed. An element suspected to be a drug must be
analyzed and identified as a controlled substance before any charges can be

filed. This is due to the fact that if the material is not a controlled substance then

 

 

CIIi

CIII

CO

3

Dhys
e‘v'ldg‘
can:

w... (t

7

no law has been broken'. The presence or lack of semen is very important in an
alleged rape case. Therefore, prosecutors need lab reports that indicate
criminality before charging or continuing the investigation of a case. Peterson
concludes ”that crime laboratories are most often requested to analyze
evidence that is mandatory for prosecution (as with drugs)" (I 986).

Once a suspect is arrested, it must be decided if charges are to be filed.
Peterson (I986) reports that prosecutors feel scientific evidence is relatively
unimportant in charging decisions (with the exception of drug, rape and arson
cases). A reason for this is most evidence is not available at the time of charging
decisions because of the time factors in the analysis of the evidence.
Consequently, prosecutors rely on the statements of eyewitnesses. Peterson
does add that “...charges are generally more likely to be filed for arrests where
physical evidence is collected and examined than cases without such scientific
evidence." (I986, p. xxii) In the Prosecution of Felony Arrest, I979, Boland (I983)
concurs that evidence plays an important role in a case, but emphasize that
witness and victim cooperation impact a case more than physical evidence.

Prosecutors like to have physical evidence that corroborates other
evidence. It is unlikely that the suspect will be charged with a crime if there is no
other evidence to corroborate the physical evidence.

Plea Bargaining is a common practice of prosecutors and defense
attorneys. For the prosecution, it is an effective way of ensuring a conviction

and avoiding the uncertainty of a trial. For defense attorneys, it decreases the

 

' Note: In lngham County, this study’s sample site, a charge of possession and or delivery
of an imitation controlled substance is brought against the suspect when the material is
analyzed and found not to be a controlled substance.

8

risk of stiffer sentence as well as the unpredictability of a trial. Peterson asserts
physical evidence is a bargaining tool which gives the prosecutor more
leverage as the evidence becomes more and more incriminating. If evidence
strongly associates a defendant with a crime the prosecutor will be less likely to
offer a plea bargain because the chances appear better for conviction through
trial. Defense attorneys are more apt to suggest a plea when there is strong
evidence against the defendant (Peterson, I987).

Conversely, Mcdonald (I979,) reports that the threat of trial is not an issue
when deciding whether or not to plea bargain. He states that “case strength.
[viciousnessj of the defendant, and seriousness of the offense" are the
determining factors for plea bargaining.

At trial, the case is heard by a judge or jury who determine the guilt or
innocence of the defendant based on the evidence presented. Peterson (I986)
contends that a jury is influenced in favor of the prosecution by the presence of
lab reports and expert witnesses. Expert testimony is considered to be the most
influential because it is deemed more reliable by the jury. The explanation of
forensic evidence is often romanticized in movies, television and books, creating
a feeling of mysticism and intrigue. Prosecutors will use physical evidence
especially when they feel the jury expects it. They also think they must explain
why no evidence is present if it is not used in a particular instance in a trial.
(Peterson, I986) Boland “found that cases in which physical evidence was

recovered were more than 2V2 times as likely to result in a conviction" (I983.

p.IO).

9

A condition that must be met when presenting forensic evidence is it must
be understandable to a jury. The average juror will become frustrated and
angered if the expert talks in confusing scientific mumbo-jumbo. Evidence that
is claimed to be most understood and accepted by juries is fingerprint and
firearm analysis. The jury is less likely to understand the evidence examined by
chemical and biological methods. When it is used, physical evidence increases
the chances of conviction when it corroborates other evidence (Peterson, I986).

In its unadulterated form, physical evidence is a non-biased form of
evidence that cannot knowingly or unwittingly Iie, as can witnesses, victims and
suspects. Physical evidence may or may not play an important role in the arrest
and conviction of a criminal. When collected and examined properly, forensic
evidence is a respected form of evidence. It assists the investigating officers by
identifying and linking a suspect to a crime. It can exculpate the innocent by

eliminating the possibility of a person being connected with a crime.

Research on Physical Evidence

The first study discussed is The Use of Scientific Evidence in Litigation by
Michael Saks and Richard Van Duizend (I983). It was written from the attorney’s
perspective. It addressed the use of only forensic evidence in all court
proceedings (civil and criminal). The present study concentrates only on felony
cases which use forensic evidence as well as non-forensic evidence. The Use of
Scientific Evidence in Litigation is cited in this paper to reveal the attorney’s

viewpoint of forensic evidence use.

10

The purpose of the Saks/Van Duizend study was to summarize what is
known about the use of forensic evidence in the courts, and to identify the issues
and problems that occur when this evidence is used. It focused on the legal
issues of forensic evidence as opposed to trying to identify the exact rate of use
and the effects of it. The methodology consisted of a review of literature,
interviews, and a review of nine case studies ranging from a homicide to a civil
rights case. Six of the cases were criminal cases. The case studies were chosen
by interviewing judges, attorneys and experts about their cases and asking for
“run-of-the-mill" cases for study. They conducted non-structured interviews with
various individuals involved in each case and inspected transcripts, briefs, lab
reports and exhibits.

Validity problems exist in the fact that the cases studied were not
selected randomly nor were the interviews structured. A non-random study
cannot be generalized to the patterns of the rest of the criminal justice system.
They admit to these problems and indicate that the “purpose [was] to identify
the range of solutions" to the problems that were discovered (pl 2). Conclusions
and solutions suggested in the report were numerous. One conclusion reached
was that scientific evidence helps in the settlement of a case by clarifying the
facts. It was also suggested that prosecutors feel "scientific evidence is very
believable and would be used more if it were more readily available" (p.39).

The next study to be reviewed is The Role of Forensic Science Evidence In
Criminal Proceedings by Paul Roberts and Chris Willmore (I993). The study was
conducted in Great Britain. The methodology consisted of reviewing 24 cases

that had physical evidence submitted for forensic analysis. The sample was

ll

chosen by consulting the accounting list of the prosecution’s payment to the
forensic experts. Therefore, the validity of the results are suspect due to a lack of
randomness.

They collected data by interviewing one prosecution representative, one
defense representative and one forensic expert involved in each of the cases.
Like the present study, the cases were taken from one geographical area.
Although this is a limitation, one argument is that the study site is of average size
and could be representative of the average community.

Roberts and Willmore found that the police were the initiators of
collecting forensic evidence. Drug cases always had analysis of forensic
evidence. Burglary cases were also found to have much scientific evidence
(glass, footprint, fibers, etc.) All five of the burglary cases had some form of
forensic analysis. This conclusion is opposed in Peterson's research which states
that trace evidence are not collected often. It must be noted that Roberts and
Willmore's conclusions cannot be generalized to all burglaries because their
whole data sample consisted of cases that had some form of forensic analysis.
There was no comparison of other burglary cases to determine how often
forensic evidence is not collected.

The Roberts/Willmore study differs from the present study in that it focuses
on the preparation of evidence and experts in a trial. It is a qualitative study.
Whereas, the present study concentrates on the quantitative use of physical
evidence and compares it to cases with no physical evidence. Also, the afore
mentioned study was conducted in a foreign country with different social

priorities and criminal justice policies.

12

Another study that relates to the use of physical evidence is Forensic
Evidence and the Police: The Effects of Scientific Evidence on Criminal
Investigations by Joseph Peterson (I984). The primary objective of this study was
to describe frequently used physical evidence types in criminal investigations. It
focused on the perspective of police uses of physical evidence. The study sites
included: Peoria, Illinois; Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City, Missouri; and Oakland,
California. They examined two types of cases, those with physical evidence
and those without it. They obtained a random selection of cases (homicide,
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and arson) from the crime labs in
the study sites. Then, they gathered information from cases of robbery,
aggravated assault, and burglary without physical evidence collected. The
study was continued by reviewing the police files of the cases, followed by
examining the prosecutor and court files of those cases that were charged
(Peterson, I984).

The results of the study showed that clearance rates for robberies and
burglaries were higher in cases that had included physical evidence. Also, the
offenders in those cases had higher rates of conviction. Rape cases had higher
rates of conviction when semen was identified or when other evidence linked
the defendant to the victim. Aggravated assault case clearance and
prosecution were not affected by physical evidence. Peterson concluded.
”Forensic evidence has its greatest effect in cases which, traditionally, have the
lowest solution rates—cases with suspects neither in custody nor identified at the

preliminary investigation stage" (Peterson, I984).

l3

Peterson conducted another study as a continuation of the previous
research, Forensic Evidence and the Courts: The Uses and Effects of Scientific
Evidence in Criminal Case Processing (I986). It is the principal scientific
exploration which is most closely related to the present study.

Peterson (I986) conducted an extensive search into the use and effects
of forensic evidence in the felony court system. The study utilized many forms of
data from six jurisdictions across the country. The sites included: Chicago, Illinois:
Peoria, Illinois: Kansas City, Missouri; Oakland, California: and Litchfield and New
Haven in Connecticut. The data collection methods included: inspection of
prosecutor case files; a mail survey of the nation‘s crime labs, interviews with
prosecutors and defense attorneys; and in Chicago only: hypothetical felony
case questionnaires given to the prosecutors and a survey of Chicago jurors.
The prosecution case files were a random sample of all cases from criminal
cases that occurred in the years I975, I978 and I981.

Of the types of crimes committed, violent crimes were the least common,
averaging only 32% of the cases, whereas, property offenses comprised most of
the cases prosecuted. Peterson found that lab reports were included in a range
of 25% to 40% of the case files in the six jurisdictions. He also found that almost
l00% of murder and drug cases contained lab reports. The next type of crime
most likely to analyze forensic evidence were rape cases, ranging from I4% to
78% of the rape case files. Forensic evidence was least often analyzed in
burglary (30%), robbery (less than 20%) and attempted murder cases (TO to 20%)

(Peterson , I986).

14

The most predominant evidence types described in the lab reports were
drugs (90%) and fingerprints (34%). The next most frequent types were blood and
bloodstains, firearms, and semen. Peterson concluded that forensic evidence is
most analyzed for cases that need evidence to affirm 0 crime has been
committed (drugs) or “can conclusively link a defendant with a crime
(fingerprints)" (Peterson, I986. p.294). Also, Peterson reported that the trace
evidence types of hairs, fibers, glass, paint and soil rarely appear in routine
criminal cases. He reports this is a result of “the infrequency with which such
evidence is recovered from the scenes of crimes...as well as the more limited
information which is extracted from it" (Peterson, I986, p. xxi).

A benefit for the Peterson study was in the use of varied forms of data,
from case files to surveys of actual role players. Facts of cases intermingled with
Opinions and beliefs of the individuals involved in the system has a potential for a
well-rounded study. However, the study only utilizes the cases of major cities,
each of which are a single component in the prosecution system of Its
respective county. In contrast, the present study comprises gfl felony crimes
prosecuted in one county during one calendar year.

Another weakness of the Peterson study is its date. It included data from
cases in the I975, I978 and I98l. One of its objectives was to determine if the
use of forensic evidence increased over time. It found that in the study sites
there was no increase in forensic evidence use. With the tremendous
technological advancement of today, changes in forensic techniques are
continuously being improved and updated. With quicker and more accessible

techniques it is logical to assume certain evidence types that were avoided

15

may be more likely to be used in the future. For example, I5 years ago DNA
analysis was in its infancy. Today, the techniques are still long and arduous but
comparably more feasible than several years ago?

Another objective of Peterson's study was to determine the impact
forensic evidence has on the outcome of a case. In the study sites, conviction
rates ranged from as low as 66% to as high as 90%. As for the association of
forensic evidence with conviction rates, only one of the study sites had statistical
significance. It revealed that forensic evidence had a statistical association with
the conviction.

Peterson also calculated the significance of tangible3 evidence in the
conviction of a case. The results were that tangible evidence has a "sizeable
and statistically significant relationship" in all but one of the study sites. He
concluded that tangible evidence has a greater impact on case outcome than
forensic evidence.

In summary, Peterson found that forensic evidence is used most often in
cases that need it to prove a crime has been committed (drug and rape). The
other forensic evidence types (fiber, soil, paint, etc.) are used much less
frequently. Property crimes comprise most of the cases prosecuted. And, of
physical evidence, tangible evidence is the only one with a statistically

significant relationship to case outcome.

 

2Note: In the present study, there were no cases using DNA analysis.

3 Note: Peterson defines tangible evidence as "something physical but which is r_1_g_t
examined scientifically" (I986, p. A-IO). For example, these include stolen property.
firearms, other weapons, etc. In the present study non-forensic evidence is synonymous
with tangible evidence.

Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to determine the use of physical evidence in
the prosecution of felony cases. The study describes the rate that physical
evidence was collected and the forensic evidence that was analyzed. In this
report, physical evidence refers to both forensic evidence and non-forensic
evidence. Forensic evidence is evidence of a physical nature dependent on
scientific analysis to determine identification and relation to persons or things
connected to a crime. Non-forensic evidence is considered to be evidence of
a physical nature that was not collected for the purpose of scientific analysis.

Data for the study was collected from a_ll lngham County Circuit Court
felony case files closed in the year I992. The actual crime, though, may not
have necessarily occurred in I992. The earliest date of a crime in the cases
reported occurred in I982. The year I992 was chosen because data collection
was started in October I993. Therefore, I992 was the most recent year of a
complete set of closed cases.

The case files that were used to collect the data were the property of the
lngham County Prosecutor's Office located in Lansing, Michigan. The files were
stored in boxes in alphabetical order per defendant. However, the actual order

of data collection was not alphabetical. In other words, the first case (#0001)

17

should not be assumed to be derived from the file of “Abe Abraham" nor was
the last case (#I303) necessarily from the file of “Zoe Zycke"‘. The total number
of cases collected was I3032. The intention was to collect the data from a
complete year of felony cases. There was no random sampling because the
entire population of cases for that year was included.

lngham county is located in the mid-Michigan region of the lower
peninsula. It consists of the state capital, Lansing, as well as Michigan State
University. It is approximately one hour's drive northwest of the metropolis of
Detroit and one hour east from Grand Rapids. According to the I990 Census
Report, lngham County has a general population of 28I,9I2. The county has a
range of cities. villages and townships. It is a mostly rural county with many
farming communities. The urban core of the county is located in the region of
the capital city, Lansing.

The largest city is Lansing with a population of 127,321. The next largest
city is East Lansing with a population of 50,677. East Lansing is home to Michigan
State University which during the school year has a student body of over 40,000.
Meridian township has a population of 35,644 and is adjacent and to the east of
East Lansing. The smallest community in the county is the village of Stockbridge

with a population of l,202. Another feature of lngham county is that it contains

 

' Note: These are hypothetical names and do not indicate any criminality relating to
those persons with such names. All data was collected under the agreement of keeping
the defendants anonymous.

2 Note: Six completed codebooks and a box of files containing approximately 35 files
were misplaced and never located. The data from those files could not be included in
the study. Therefore, the total sampling frame of the study is smaller than the total
number of closed cases for lngham County in I992.

18

the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Headquarters, which is located in
East Lansing.

lngham County is a consolidated prosecution jurisdiction. The
prosecution gets cases from twelve police agencies3. These include the
Michigan State Police and its various divisions, lngham County Sheriff
Department, the local agencies of Lansing, East Lansing, and Michigan State
University. The court system in lngham County consists of seven circuit courts
which preside over felony cases and civil cases. The district courts handle cases of
misdemeanor crimes. Evidence is collected by police investigation teams and is
transferred to the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Laboratory when
analysis is needed.

The 1992 Michigan Uniform Crime Report indicates the ‘total actual
offenses' reported for lngham county in 1992 was 39,656 and, in 1991, it was
40,937. The ‘total actual offenses’ includes index offenses and non-index
offenses‘. Index offenses are state felony violations of a serious nature such as
murder, robbery, arson. The non-index offenses are “violations of state and local
laws" and include such violations as negligent manslaughter, fraud, weapons,
drugs, and drunk driving. Lansing reportedly had 20,421 total offenses in 1992.
The State Police and lngham County Sheriffs Department reported 918 and 4,392
offenses, respectively. East Lansing and Michigan State University reported the
number of actual offenses to be 5,921 and 3.821, respectively.

It is interesting to note the number of reported offenses (which include all

crimes from murder to vagrancy--felonies and misdemeanors) for 1991 and 1992

 

3 Note: See Codebook variable v8 fora complete listing of the agencies.

19

was about 40,000 each year. Yet, the approximate number of felony
prosecution cases closed in the course of 1992 was just over 1,300. This indicates
that only a small percentage of offenses were actually prosecuted.

A codebook was constructed as a data collection tool (see Appendix A).

It was a questionnaire-type guide for the data investigator. It was modeled after
and revised from a version created in 1982 by Jay Siegel and Frank Horvath fora
study similar to this one. The base part of the codebook consisted of I66
variables. Itwas divided into the following sections:

. Crime Information: Variables vI-vl25 identify: the number of
defendants and victims; the location, date, day and time of the
crime; the arresting agency; and the number of eyewitnesses.

. Non-forensic Evidence: Variables v13-v18 identify non-forensic
evidence: personal effects; fruits of crime; prima facie evidence:
weapons; and tools.

. Forensic Evidence: Variables v19-v73 identify forensic evidence types
collected and the results (if analyzed): latent fingerprints; firearms:
toolmarks: serial number restoration; questioned documents; arson:
glass: fiber: paint; soil; shoe-prints: tire tracks; hair: semen; blood;
toxicology: postmortem; and drugs.

0 Expert Witness Information: Variables v74-v78 identify expert witness
information: number of experts used in the case; number of experts

who testified at trial: and the area of expertise.

 

‘ Note: A complete list of index and non-index crimes is found in Appendix C.
5 Note: v# identifies the variable numbers used in the codebook.

20

Defendant Number 1 Information: Variables v79-v85 classify defendant
#1 information: race: age; date of birth; gender: occupation; and
place of residence.

Criminal History: Variables v86—v90 describe the criminal history of the
defendant: total number of arrests; number of misdemeanor and
felony convictions; total number of prior convictions; and classification
of habitual criminal.

Present Criminal Arrest Information: Variables v9I-98 indicates the
circumstances of the arrest of the crime in question: arrest status
(where defendant was arrested); admission and confession:
psychological examination; and polygraph examination.

Charges: The next set of variables. v99-vl 41, describe up to six possible
charges brought against defendant #1 and their results: type of
charge: actual charge: specific drug (if a drug related charge):
charge category (felony or misdemeanor); result of charge; trial type:
and trial result.

Pretrial information: Pretrial information is classified in variables v142-
v145: preliminary hearing and outcome: and Grand Jury and
outcome.

Sentence: Variables vI46-v155 describe sentence information: jail
status and length; prison term; probation length and terms: amount of

restitution: and the fine amount.

2]

. Victim Information: The last section of the base codebook, v156—vl 66,
identifies the victim information: nature of victim: race: age: gender;
place of residence: occupation: relation victim has to defendant; and
damages to victim.

The base codebook includes case information for one defendant with
variables accounting for 6 possible charges and one victim. Additions to the
base codebook were added per case, dependent on the information in that
case. For example, a case that involved three victims would have the extra
pages of victim information variables added to it in order to collect the
information for each victim. Also, additional variables were added to account
for cases with multiple defendants and/or cases where defendant #1 was
charged with more than six charges. Therefore, any one codebook could vary
in length relative to the previous case or the next case.

Each case file consisted of an assortment of the following documents

from which the data were obtained:

oThe arrest warrant; oTrial verdict information sheet:
oTrial and motion information sheet: oPre-sentencing review report;
oList of witnesses: oCrime check report:

oPoIice reports (initial and follow-up): oList of charges:

oForensic psychiatric report; oLab reports:
oConfession reports; oSubpoenas:
olnterrogation transcripts; oMedical reports.

oNoIle prosequi information sheet:

22

The file was read and the corresponding variable codes were entered
into the codebook. Each variable had multiple categories used to identify the
characteristics of the variable. The code numbers were used to represent the
categories. The numbers were subsequently entered into a computer for data
processing. For example, variable v3 identifies the location of the crime. The
possible category answers for this variable were: 0-unknown; l-city: 2-village: 3-
township; 4—university; and 5-community college. Therefore, if the crime for the
case happened in Lansing, the code number ‘1’ would be entered on the code
book to classify it as a city. Then variable v4 of that case would be coded ‘2' for
the identification of Lansing (see appendix A for the other codes of v4).

Defendant statistics (age, gender, race, date of birth, etc...) were found
on the arrest warrant and/or the police report. Also, the crime date, time and
location were found on either the arrest warrant or the police report. The data
collector would read through the police reports for an overview of the crime.
The police report would indicate if any physical evidence was collected.
Laboratory reports would identify what evidence was examined and the results
of the analysis.

The following is an explanation of the process of collecting the data and
the variables that were used in the analysis of this study.

The nominal variable of non-forensic evidence were identified by
reviewing the prosecutor's copy of the police reports found in the case file. The
variable v14, personal effects, included items which were found on or near the
suspect, victim or scene of the crime that were of a personal nature. This

includes, but is not limited to: clothing, wallets, purses, identification, etc. The

23

fruits of crime variable, v15, refers to evidence that was stolen and later
recovered. Prima facie evidence, v16, was considered to be items that
established a fact in the case (e.g., bank statements, inventory lists, controlled
substance contraband, etc).

Weapons and tools (v17 and v18, respectively) included those items that
are considered a weapon (e.g. gun, knife...) or tool (crow bar, screwdriver, etc)
found on or near the suspect or at the scene of the crime. Any item that could
be classified as a tool (e.g., a crowbar) but was reported to be used as a
weapon, in any way, was classified as a weapon. For example, a felonious
assault case where a defendant hit the victim with a baseball bat would have
the bat coded as a weapon. Any non-forensic type evidence (e.g., a suspect's
coat with possible blood stains on it) was coded in the forensic evidence section
if any part of the item had scientific analysis.

Evidence of a forensic nature was coded in the nominal variables v19-
v73. If no forensic evidence was collected in the case, v19 was coded I-no and
the contingent nominal variables v20-v73 were coded as 9-none. The data
collector would then proceed to record the data for the variables in the rest of
the codebook. If, however, any forensic evidence type was found to be
collected, the data collector would answer yes in v19. The forensic evidence
type variables v20-v73 would be coded appropriately. Each evidence type that
was collected and then analyzed by an expert was coded in the codebook as
2-yes. Analysis of the evidence was indicated by the presence of a lab report. If
a forensic evidence type was collected but never analyzed then it was coded

as 3-collected, but not analyzed.

24

The first forensic evidence types listed in the codebook were impression
evidence: latent prints (v20); firearms (v22); toolmarks (v25); and serial number
restoration (v27). Latent prints included identification and removal of any print
(finger or otherwise) from a crime scene or object connected to the crime.
Firearms analysis consisted of the comparison of the caliber and impression
marks on bullets and or shells resulting from firearms allegedly related to a crime.
Toolmarks were the evidence of impressions left by a tool at the scene of a
crime and the comparison of those impressions with a suspect tool. Serial
number restoration refers to evidence (firearms, stereos, TV's, etc.) that had
alleged relation to a crime where the identifying serial number was removed
and attempts to restore the number were made.

The nominal variable of questioned document, v30, evidence was
separated into two types: check signature and other documents. This was to
distinguish between forensic evidence of forged or questionable checks from
other questionable documents, such as letters, titles, ledgers, etc.

Next came the nominal variable v35 for arson forensic evidence. If any of
the trace evidence types: glass (v38), fiber (v40), paints (v42), soils (v44), or hair
(v50), were collected in a case, they were coded accordingly. The variable v46,
shoe-prints, was coded as yes in cases where it was collected as an impression
as well as when the footprints were used in tracking the suspect with a dog
tracker.

If semen was collected in a case it was coded in the nominal variable
v53. The nominal variables identifying blood evidence, v55-v6l, were coded for

those cases that had blood analysis. These include samples tested as a result of

25

a postmortem and/or toxicology screening of alcohol content of OUIL (drunk
driving) defendants. The toxicology variable, v6I-v64, included any screening
done on victims’ or defendants’ blood for poison, drugs or alcohol content. The
alcohol variable v64 also identified the type of toxicological screening.
including, breath, blood, urine or a combination.

The next set of variables utilized in the analysis of this study relate to the
charges against the first defendant. Variable v99 tallies the total number of
charges of the defendant. The subsequent variables, v100-l4l, identify the
characteristics and result of each charge. The main codebook was formatted
for six possible charges. Not all defendants had multiple charges. Therefore,
those variables which account for the extra charges were coded a 9 or 99 for
‘none’ to identify no data for this variable. The reasons for the ‘none’ code were
to keep the data from having missing values or empty spaces in the data
columns. Allotting a code for no data makes data transfer into the computer
easier and reduces the risk of data entry error because there are no empty
columns.

The nominal variable of type of charge, vIOO defines the charge as a
violent crime committed against a person (criminal sexual conduct. assault.
robbery, etc...), a property crime (8 8. E, auto theft, malicious destruction of
property, etc...), a vice crime, and ‘other’. The category of ‘other’ ranges from
carrying a concealed weapon, to perjury, to non-sufficient funds, etc.

The next variable, v101, of the charges section was the actual legal
charge against the defendant. At the beginning of data collection, the number

of categories in this nominal variable was small (only 13 categories). By the end

26

of the data collection, the actual charge variable had been increased to
include 124 charges. Table I lists the categories of crime type with the
corresponding charges.

The charges were continually added to the variable when new ones were
encountered. With each charge identified there is the potential to differentiate
the seriousness in the multiple charges, as well as calculate any relationship
between charge reduction and physical evidence in a case. For example,
charge I could be UDAA (auto theft) with its outcome nolle prosequi (no
prosecution for the charge). Whereas, charge 2 for that defendant could be
joyriding with the outcome of a plea, which is a reduction in a charge.

The other charge type variable, v103, was collected to determine
whether the charge was a felony, a misdemeanor, or a supplemental charge.
These were identified on the list of charges. Supplemental charge is defined as
an added charge that gives greater weight or seriousness to the other charges
against the defendant. It is usually charged against a defendant with a history
of repeated offenses. For example, there is an habitual criminal charge which is
an additional charge to the crime for which the defendant was arrested. There
is no actual ‘law’ against being a person who has committed a lot of crimes. By
classifying the defendant as a habitual criminal, it reinforces the seriousness of
the defendant as a person with a propensity to commit criminal acts. Also, a
supplemental charge adds weight to the seriousness of the crime and gives the
judge more to consider when a sentence is given.

The nominal variable, charge outcome v104, was used to determine

whether a charge was resolved by a dismissal. plea bargain, trial, or a nolle

27

Table 1 Categories Of Types Of Crimes

 

A Violent Crimes against a person

2* assault &/or battery

5 assault W/l GBH

7 criminal sexual
conduct(unk deg)CSC

9 felonious assault

II murder Ist

14 armed robbery

15 unarmed robbery

34 assault W/I rob unarmed

35 Assault W/l rob armed
36 murder 2nd

41 negligent
homicide

47 child abuse

50 assault W/ I CSC

56 assault W/l
murder

59 kidnapping

66 assault w/lntent
maim

71 CSC 1

72 CSC 2

B. Non-Violent/ Property Crimes

I arson

3 auto theft/UDAA

4 breaking &/or entering

10 larceny

I2 uttering 8. publishing

19 retail fraud

23 Malicious Destruction
QfErop. (MDOP)

25 R 8. C > 100

C. ‘Other' Types of Crimes

6 counterfeiting

13 use Cs device (mace)

16 OUIL/ UBAL

17 forgery

20 carrying concealed
weapon (CCW)

22 conspiracy
(misdemeanor)

26 Supplemental

28 felonious firearm

29 escape prison

30 no account check

31 financial transaction
dech

27 embezzlement

33 R 8 C < 100

48 joyride

79 ATM fraud

88 failure to return
rented prop.

95 computer
damage >100

60 abscond on bond
61 reckless driving
62 carrying
dangerous weapon
63 carry pistol W/O
license
64 maintain gamble
room
65 pass. Short-
barreled shotgun
67 resisting/opposing
officer
68 pass. Firearm on
school prop.

73 CSC 3

74 CSC 4

78 aggravated assault

85 simple assault

93 willfully annoy

100 involuntary
manslaughter

104 parental
kidnapping

107 conspiracy-A 8. B

121 felony driving

96 arson-prepare to
burn

98 bank robbery

102 trespassing

108 conspiracy-B 8. E

109 conspiracy-larceny

I 10 conspiracy-MDOP

I 18 safe breaking

92 pass. Weapon w/
unlawful intent

94 false police report

97 pass. Unlocking
device (MSU ord.)

101 poss. Counterfeiting
tools

103 indecency between
male 8. female

106 conspiracy-false
pretense

I I 1 aiming firearm w/
malice

 

* Numbers indicate the code entered into the computer for category

identification.

 

continued on next page.

Table 'I Coni'd

28

 

C. ‘Other’ Types of Crimes Cont’d

32 suspended/ revoked

license

37 remove body

38 false pretense

39 obtain by fraud

40 supplemental/
Habitual

42 possess switchblade

43 possess brace
knuckles

44 disorderly person

45 Non Sufficient Funds
(NSF)

46 Obstruct justice

49 open alcohol auto

51 open intoxicant

52 weapon auto

53 expired plates

55 indecent exposure

58 leaving scene
accident

69 discharge firearm

70 fail to present for
inspection

76 altering operator
license

77 pass. Firearm

80 incite minor to
commit crime

81 flee/elude police

82 operating

unlicensed daycare

83 false info to obtain

84 purchase pistol
w/o license

86 no license

87 perjury

89 attend dogfight

90 use of canceled
FTD

91 pass. burglary tools

1 12 consp. poss. bomb
w/o permit

1 13 pass. bomb

1 14 furnish false info.

1 15 disturbing the
peace

I 16 impaired driving

1 17 maliciously killing a
dog

I I9 altering operator’s
lic. (ops)

120 using other person's
ops

122 obscene conduct

I23 possession of an
automatic weapon

I24 transporting a pistol

 

29

prosequi. A charge was dismissed by the court for reasons such as lack of
evidence or witnesses. constitutional issues, or other legal issues. The result of
nolle prosequi was a prosecutor’s decision to not prosecute a particular charge
as a result of a plea bargain, lack of evidence or other discretionary reasons.
When a charge went to trial it was classified as either a bench or jury trial
in the nominal variable v105. The nominal variable v106 identifies the result of
the trial: acquittal (including cases of not guilty by reason of insanity): guilty; plea

before the trial was finished; dismissed (including mistrial): and nolle prosequi.

Analysis

The data codes from the completed codebooks were entered into the
statistics program StatViewTM SE+ Graphics version 1.04. The completed study
yielded 1303 cases.

The data file was checked for data entry error. Each variable data
column was checked for category codes that did not match the given codes of
that variable. For example, the variable of v19 forensic evidence has three
possible codes: 0-unknown: I-yes; and 2—no. If ‘1 1’ was a value found in that
data column, it is obviously an error, because there is no ’1 1’ code. The error
would be corrected by comparing the codes of the following and/or preceding
variables of that case to determine the correct code number.

After the data errors were corrected, the variables were re-coded to
facilitate data analysis. The re-coding process was conducted in two ways. The
data were entered into the computer as numbers. One way to re-code was by

changing the numerical codes of a variable to ‘word’ codes. This allowed for

30

easier identification of the codes when they were presented as words opposed
to numbers. For example, v19 identifies whether forensic evidence was used in a
case. The data column for that variable would be a list of numbers. The column
was re-coded into category names to make data analysis easier. Therefore.
where there was once a ‘0' it would read ’unknown’, ‘1’ would read ’yes’, and
’2’ would read ‘no’.

The second procedure for re-coding a variable was to change a range of
category values to a specific value. This is termed collapsing variables. This
method was used to consolidate categories of similar characteristics in variables
with many categories. For example, by the end of data collection, variable

v104, charge result, ended up with 12 categories (see Table 2.)

Table 2 Charge Result—v104

 

1 Plea of a lesser charge 8 Nolo Contendere

2 Plea to charge before trial 9 none

3 Nolle Prosequi (Nolle Pro) 10 Nolle Prondouble jeopardy
4 Dismissed 1 I Nolle Pro--cannot sustain

5 Plea to attempt burden of proof

6 Trial 12 Nolle Pronvictim recants

7 Nolle Pro--in the interest ofjustice

 

When variables have more categories, it decreases the chances of
overlooking some characteristics of the cases. It also creates a situation of
having very low frequency rates for some categories. In this example the
categories of 7) Nolle Pro--in the interest of justice, 10) Nolle Pro—double jeopardy.
11) Nolle Pro--cannot sustain burden of proof and I2) Nolle Pro--victim recants
were collapsed and re-coded to 3- nolle prosequi, since they all have that

characteristic. Other collapsing of this variable was done to the categories I) Plea

31

of a lesser charge, 5) Plea to attempt, and 8) Nolo Contendere. They are all a
form of plea bargaining. Therefore, they were re-coded to ‘2- Plea to charge’.
The re-coding of ‘like’ categories was conducted on the variables: charge result,
case type. and trial result. Also, the categories of ‘none’ or ‘unknown’ were re-
coded to ‘no’ in all non-forensic and forensic evidence variables.

The variable of case type identifies the primary charge prosecuted in the
case. It is also referred to as type of crime. It was not a variable sought in the
data collection. It was created after all the data was gathered in order to
classify the cases. The first charge was the primary charge brought against the
defendant and was usually the most serious charge. Therefore, the case type
was represented by the first charge. The case type categories include: violent
crimes against a person; nonviolent/ property crimes; OUIL (drunk driving); drug
cases and: ’Other’ types of crime. ‘Other’ pertains to all cases that cannot be
classified in the other categories. These include, but are not limited to: carrying
a concealed weapon: obstructing justice; false pretense: reckless driving;
perjury: etc.

Charge 1 result and charge 2 result identify the disposition of the charge
as: plea bargain; nolle prosequi/dismissed: or trial. Trial results for charge I and
charge 2 are identified as: not guilty: guilty; plea bargain (before trial ended): or
dismissal/nolle prosequi.

A description of the use of physical evidence is best accomplished
through a frequency distribution (a count) of the variables’ categories. How

much the variable was used in all the cases is indicated when the categories

32

are tabulated. For example, the frequency of the forensic evidence variable
represents the number of cases which used forensic evidence.
Data analysis was based on the frequency distributions of the following
variables:
0 Type of crime:
0 Physical evidence: Forensic and non-forensic;
. Impression evidence: latent fingerprints, firearms, toolmarks.
serial number restoration, shoe-prints, and tire tracks:
0 Trace evidence: arson, glass, fiber, paint, soils, and hair:
. Serology evidence: semen. blood, and toxicological:
1» Questioned documents:

. Charge 1 and Charge 2 results for defendant #1.

Tests of statistical significance (chi-square) were calculated to determine
the association physical evidence has with type of crime and charge results.
The contingency coefficient and Cramer’s V were the correlation coefficients
used to determine the strength of the relationship. Analysis was conducted by
forming contingency tables that identified the frequency of physical evidence
distributed in type of crime Additional analysis was conducted to establish the
relationship physical evidence had with the charge outcomes. This was done by
tabulating the results of charges I and 2 and their trial results with the variable
physical evidence. Also, contingency tables were made to isolate the
frequencies of the forensic evidence types that were analyzed and not

analyzed and determine their relationship with type of crime.

33

The reason for this analysis was to discover the type of crimes which
contain the most physical evidence and what impact forensic and non—forensic
evidence had on the outcome of the charge. Also, the identification of the
most used forensic evidence types was sought. The variables comparisons used
were:

0 type of crime with physical evidence;

a type of crime and each forensic evidence types.
. physical evidence and charge 1 results

. physical evidence and charge 1 trial results

0 physical evidence and charge 2 results

0 physical evidence and charge 2 trial results.

Chapter 3

RESULTS

The total number of cases collected was 1303. The majority (86%) of the
cases were one defendant cases committed by males (84%). The races of the
defendants were almost equal at 603 (46.3%) white defendants, and 598 (45.9%)
black defendants. Hispanics comprised 6.8% of the defendants. The mean age
of the defendants was 26.7 years with ages ranging from 15 to 68 years.

Most of the cases (55%) 708 had only one victim and 7% (94) of the cases
had two or more victims. Victimless crimes (e.g. drugs, carrying a concealed
weapon, etc.) comprised 38% (500) of the cases.

The majority (66%) of the crimes were committed in Lansing. The second and
third most frequent locations of the crimes were East Lansing (9%) and Meridian
Township (8.5%). From the case files, the Lansing Police Department was the
agency that submitted most of the police reports (60%) followed by lngham
County Sheriff’s Department with 9% of the police reports. Meridian Township
police submitted 8% of the police reports and the East Lansing Police

Department submitted 7.6% of the police reports.

Rate of Physical Evidence
The first question being addressed is: What is the rate of physical evidence

use in felony prosecution cases? Table 3 identifies the frequencies of forensic
34

35
Table 3 Physical Evidence in the Data with and without Drug and OUIL Cases

 

 

Forensic Evidence Non-Forensic Physical
(percentage) Evidence Evidence‘
(percentage) (percentage)

All cases
(n=1303) 596 (46%) 507 (39%) I 103 (85%)
Drug cases
and OUIL 201 (22%) 507 (56%) 708 (78%)
cases
excluded
(n=905)

 

 

 

‘Total number of cases with forensic evidence and/or non-forensic
evidence.

evidence and non-forensic evidence as well as the combination of the two in
physical evidence.

It is unfortunate that this country is plagued with illegal drug use. When
individuals are arrested and a suspected controlled substance is found, it is
necessary to perform chemical analysis of the substance in order to identify it. It
was reported earlier in this paper that suspected drug cases require scientific
analysis in order to establish that a crime has been committed. Drug related
cases comprised 348 of the cases. All of those cases had forensic evidence in
the form of drug analysis.

Drunk driving cases also require the use of scientific evidence to establish
that the law has been broken. There were 50 OUIL casesl. Table 3 shows the

difference in percent of forensic evidence when the 348 drug cases and the 50

 

I Only 47 of the OUIL cases analyzed evidence. A possible reason for three of the OUIL
cases not having forensic evidence is the refusal of the suspect to take a breathalyzer
test

 

36

OUIL cases are excluded from the total number of cases. The exclusion of these
cases is based on the effect they have on the forensic evidence. not the non-
forensic evidence. Forensic evidence was reported in 46% of the 1303 cases.
When the drug cases and OUIL cases are excluded, the rate of forensic
evidence drops to 22%.

It can be asserted that drug and OUIL cases need forensic analysis to
establish grounds for charging a suspect. Upon acceptance of that assertion.
the drug cases and OUIL cases were excluded in order to reveal the use of
forensic evidence that is not necessarily required to establish a crime. Therefore.
analysis was conducted on the remaining 905 cases.

Non-forensic evidence was collected in more cases than forensic
evidence 56% and 22%, respectively (see Table 3). The variable of physical
evidence identifies those cases that collected non-forensic evidence and/ or
forensic evidence. It is a representation of those cases with at least one form of
physical evidence. More cases had physical evidence collected than those
without any physical evidence. A total of 78% (708) of the cases had some form

of physical evidence.

Table 4 Frequencies of Type of Crime

 

Number of Cases (percentage)

 

Violent crimes against a person 205 (23%)
Non-violent/property crime 490 (54%)
Other crimes 210 (23%)

 

 

total 905 (100%)

 

 

37
Physical Evidence Rates Distributed in Type of Crime

Knowing that 78% of the cases used some form of physical evidence.
what is the rate that evidence was used in each type of crime? First, the
frequencies of the type of crime needs to be identified. Table 4 is a distribution
of the cases distinguished by the type of crime that was prosecuted. More than
half of all the cases, 54%, were non-violent/property crimes. The ‘other’ types of
crimes and the violent crimes each comprised 23% of the cases.

Table 5 identifies the observed frequencies of non-forensic and forensic
evidence distinguished in the type of crime. Only 20% of the cases had no
physical evidence of any kind collected. Non-forensic evidence was collected
in more than half the cases. Forensic evidence was found in 22% of the cases.

Forensic evidence was collected in 24% of the violent crimes, 22% of the
non-violent crimes, and 21% of the Other cases. Non-forensic evidence was in

42% of the violent crimes, 61% of non—violent crimes and 57% of Other crimes.

Table 5 Distribution of Physical Evidence by Type of Crime

 

 

 

Physical Evidence Type of Crime total
Violent Non-Violent/ Other
againsta Property (%) (%) n=905
person (%) n=490 n=210
n=205
Forensic Evidence 49 (24%) 108 (22%) 44 (21%) 201 (22%)
Non-Forensic 86 (42%) 301 (61%) I20 (57%) 507 (56%)
Evidence
No Physical 70 (34%) 81 (17%) 46 (22%) 197 (22%)
Evidence

 

 

Chl Square: X2=30.875, Level of Significance: p=.0001, Degree of Freedom:
df= 4, Contingency Coefficient: c=0.182

38

The deduction reached in the comparison of physical evidence use in
types of crime is that non-forensic evidence is collected more often than
forensic evidence. Non-forensic evidence was found in almost two times as
many violent crimes and three times as many non-violent crimes than forensic
evidence. It seems logical that property crimes would have the most non-
forensic evidence collected since stolen property and tools are likely to be
recovered. Non-forensic evidence was collected in over two times as many

‘other’ crimes.

Rates of Usage of Each Forensic Evidence Type

The next characteristic of physical evidence use to be described is the
rate of each individual forensic evidence. Table 6 tabulates the rate at which
each forensic evidence type was found in each case file. It was categorized as
‘analyzed’ and ‘not analyzed’. ‘Not analyzed' indicates evidence that was
collected with the intentions of being scientifically analyzed but was not.

As indicated previously, drug evidence was obviously the most analyzed
forensic evidence. The forensic evidence type that was next most analyzed was
latent prints at 7.3%, followed by alcohol analysis at 3%, then blood at 1.8%. The
next most frequent forensic evidence types were questioned document
signatures and firearms evidence. The forensic evidence types least analyzed
were toolmarks, paint, toxicology-poison and soils. Serial number restoration was
never conducted in any of the cases.

In order to calculate the chi square and the level of significance

(addressed later in the study). each forensic evidence types were combined

39

Table 6 Instances of Each Forensic Evidence Type

 

 

Classified Forensic Evidence Analyzed Not Analyzed
Evidence Categories (percentage) (percentage)
latent prints 70 (7.7%) 28 (3%)
firearms 8 (0.9%) 7 (0.8%)
impression toolmarks I (0.1%) 4 (0.4%)
serial number 0 0
restoration
shoe-print 7 (0.8%) 6 (0.7%)
tire track 1 (0.1%) I (0.1%)
totals: 87 46
hair 7 (0.8%) 7 (0.8%)
arson 5 (0.6%) 1 (0.1%)
Trace glass 2 (0.2%) 10 ( 1 %)
fiber 2 (0.2%) 5 (0.6%)
paint 1 (0.1%) 2 (0.2%)
soil 0 I (0.1%)
totals: I7 26
Serology Iblood 16 (1.8%) 9 (1%)
semen 5 (0.6%) 5 (0.6%)
totals: 21 I4
poison I (0.1%) O
Toxicology drugs 7 (0.7%) 0
alcohol 21 (3%) 0
totals: 29 0
Questioned signature 13 (1.4%) 25 (2.8%)
Documents other 4 (0.4%) 10 1%
totals: 17 35
Pathology lpostmortem II (1.2%) 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

Table 7 Cases with Classified Forensic Evidence Types

 

 

Forensic Evidence Analyzed" (percentage) NotAnalyzed“
Categories (percentage)
Impression Evidence 75 (8%) 34 (4%)
Trace Evidence 15 (2%) 18 (2%)
Serology Evidence 17 (1.9%) II (1.2%)
Toxicology Evidence 21 (7%) 0
Questioned 14 (1.5%) 33 (3.5%)
Documents

 

 

*Note: The numbers do not add up to the totals in Table 6 because some
cases had more than one kind of impression evidence or trace evidence
or serology evidence or toxicology evidence or questioned documents.

into their respective forensic evidence classifications. These are indicated in the
first column of Table 6.

Table 7 identifies the rate of use of the classified forensic evidence types.
The combined variables include cases that analyzed at least one form of
forensic evidence. For example, latent prints were collected in 70 cases and are
classified as impression evidence. The combined impression variable shows
impression evidence was collected in 75 cases. Table 6 indicates the total for all
the impression evidence is 87. Therefore, by collapsing the individual forensic
evidence variables into one variable, evidence appears to have been ‘Iost’.
This is unavoidable. The difference in the rates is because there were individual
cases that had more than one impression evidence collected. To conduct
statistical analysis on the data, there must be enough data to allow for reliable
statistical conclusions. Contingency tables could not be calculated with the

small frequencies of the individual forensic evidence types.

41
The Rate and Effect of the Types of Forensic Evidence in Type of Crime

The main objective of this study was to discover how often forensic
evidence is used and in which type of crime forensic evidence is collected most
often. Tables 8-12 indicate the rate at which each forensic evidence is
distributed in type of crime.

Table 8 identifies the rate of impression evidence. Impression evidence
was analyzed in 1 1% of violent crimes, 9% of non-violent crimes, and only 4% of
other crimes. It appears as though non-violent crimes use impression evidence
more than violent crimes. It can be explained in the assumption that property
crimes, such as burglary and breaking and entering, may tend to have less
interaction with people therefore, decreasing eyewitness assistance.

The non-violent crime cases had a greater percentage of cases that
never analyzed the data collected, 6% compared to 3% of the violent crime
cases. Of the violent crime cases, 11% had impression evidence analyzed and
9% of the non-violent crime cases analyzed it. This might be explained because

it has been asserted in other literature that evidence technicians sometimes

Table 8 Impression Evidence and Type of Crime

 

 

 

 

 

Impression Evidence Type of Crime total
Violent against a Non-Violent/ Other
person (%) Property (%) (%)
n=205 n=490 n=210
analyzed 22 (11%) 44 (9%) 9 (4%) 75
not analyzed 7 (3%) 27 (6%) 0 34
Total 29 71 9 109

 

 

Chi Square: X2=6.298, Level of Significance: p=.0429, Degree of Freedom:
df=2 and Cramer's V: V=0.24

42

collect evidence because the victim is expecting it. There may never be any
intentions of analyzing the evidence. but to appease the victim the evidence
technicians collect it anyway.

The chi square (X2) test of independence was calculated. It was decided
that a level of significance (p) greater than .05 would be unacceptable. This
means the null hypothesis implying there is no relationship between the two
independent variables was not rejected. If, however, the level of significance
calculates to be less than .05, then the null hypothesis was rejected and a
relationship between the variables was inferred.

The correlation coefficients used in the analysis were contingency
coefficient and Cramer's V. The contingency coefficient (c) was used to
measure the degree of association between the variables of tables with even
columns and rows. The Cramer's V (V) was used to measure the degree of
association between the variables of tables with uneven columns and rows. This
correlation coefficient is not dependent on the size of the table as is the
contingency coefficient. The closer Cramer‘s V and the contingency coefficient
are to 1 means a greater association between the variables. It is designated in
this study that a c or V<.30 has a weak relationship. If c or V >.60, the relationship
is considered to be great and a contingency coefficient or a Cramer’s V less
than .60 but greater than .30 has a moderate degree of association (Levin.
1983).

Impression evidence calculated with type of crime produced a X2=6.298
at 2 degrees of freedom (df) with p=.0429 and a Cramer’s V=0.24. The V of 0.24

indicates a slight association between type of crime and impression evidence.

 

43

Table 9 Trace Evidence and Type of Crime

 

 

 

 

Trace Evidence Type of Crime total
Violent against Non-Violent/ Other
aperson (%) Property (%) (%)
n=205 n=490 n=210
analyzed 8(4%) 7 (1.4%) 0 15
not analyzed 8 (4%) 8 (1.6%) 1 (0.5%) 17
Total 16 15 1 32

 

 

X2=0.945 p=.6233, df=2, and V=0.172

The null hypothesis of there being no relationship between impression
evidence and type of crime was rejected. Therefore, it is concluded that
impression evidence and type of crime are not independent of each other.

Table 9 identifies the rate of trace evidence compared with type of
crime. Violent crime cases had the greatest percentage of trace evidence
analyzed and not analyzed at a rate of 4% each. Non-violent crime cases used
forensic evidence at the rate of 1.4% analyzed and 1.6% not analyzed. Other
crime cases again had low rates of evidence with none analyzed. And, less
than 1% of the cases had it not analyzed.

The analysis of trace evidence’s association with type of crime shows
X2=0.945, p=.6233, df=2, and V=0.172. The level of significance was greater than
the accepted value of 0.5 indicating that trace evidence and type of crime are
independent of each other.

The next evidence type to be compared with type of crime is serology.
Table 10 shows that serology evidence was analyzed in 7% and not analyzed in

3% of the violent crime cases. Non-violent crime cases had the smallest percent

 

44

Table 10 Serology Evidence and Type of Crime

 

 

 

 

Serology Evidence Type of Crime total
Violent against a Non-Violent/ Other (%)
person (%) Property (%) n=210
n=205 n=490
analyzed 14 (7%) 2 (0.4%) 1 (0.5%) 17
not analyzed 7 (3%) 3 (0.6%) 1 (0.5%) 11
Total 21 5 2 28

 

 

X2=1.308 p=.52, df=2, and V=0.216

with <1% analyzed and <1% not analyzed. Less than 1 percent of the ’other’
crimes cases analyzed serology evidence.

The calculation of relationship between serology evidence and type of
crime produced a X2=1.308 at a p=.52, df=2, and V=0.216. The relationship is
not considered statistically significant because the level of significance
exceeded the accepted value. Therefore, there is no relationship between
serology evidence and type of crime.

Table 1 1 shows the relationship between toxicology evidence and type of

crime. Toxicology evidence was most prevalent in the OUIL cases where 94%

had toxicology analysis. Toxicology evidence was most analyzed in the violent

Table 11 Toxicology Evidence and Type of Crime

 

 

 

Toxicology Evidence Type of Crime total
Violent againsta Non-Violent/ Other (%)
person (%) Property (%) n=210
n=205 n=490
analyzed 9 (4%) 3 (1%) 9 (4%) 68
not analyzed 0 0 0 0

 

 

No statistical calculations available due to zero values in ‘not analyzed’ row.

 

 

 

45

Table 12 Questioned Document Evidence and Type of Crime

 

 

 

Questioned document Type of Crime total
Evidence
Violent Non-Violent/ Other (%)
againsta Property (%) n=210
person (%) n=490
n=205
analyzed 0 8 (2%) 6 (3%) 14
not analyzed 0 24 (5%) 9 (4%) 33

 

 

No statistical calculations available due to no values in violent crimes.

crimes and other crimes where each had 4% of the cases analyzing it. Non-
violent crimes had toxicology evidence analysis the least with only 1% of those
cases analyzing it. The statistical calculations could not be performed for this
contingency table due to the lack of data.

The next forensic evidence type to be described is questioned
documents seen in Table 12. It was never collected in any of the violent crime
cases. It was analyzed in 2% and not analyzed in 5% of the non~violent crime
cases. The other crimes cases had 3% of the cases with analyzed questioned
document evidence and 4% of the cases did not analyze the collected
questioned documents. This contingency table could not have statistical

analysis due to lack of data in the violent crime category.

Physical Evidence and the Disposition of Felony Cases
One way to determine the importance of physical evidence is to identify
its association with the disposition of a case. Charge results identify how the

charge was resolved. The variable of charge results has the categories of plea

 

46
Table 13 Total Number of Charges for the Primary Defendant of a Case

 

 

 

Number of charges Number of Cases (percentage)
one charge 361 (39.8%)

two charges 363 (40.1%)

three charges 98 (10.8%)

four charges 48 (5.3%)

five charges 17 (1.8%)

six charges 5 (0.6%)

7 to 20 charges 13 (1.4%)

total 905

 

bargain, nolle prosequi, dismissed or trial. For the analysis of statistical
association, the categories of nolle prosequi and dismissed were consolidated.
They both represent charges that were not prosecuted.

Each defendant had at least one charge filed. Table 13 displays the
frequency of the total number of charges for defendant 1. The majority of the
cases (79.9%) had only one or two charges. Therefore, the analysis of the
association of physical evidence with the disposition of cases will deal only with
the results of charge 1 and charge 2.

Table 14 identifies the characteristics of charge 1 results. The rate of
charge results is distributed in cases with forensic evidence and cases with non-
torensic evidence. Forensic evidence was present in 20% of the plea bargain
cases, 24% of the cases where the charge was a nolle prosequi/dismissed and
20% of the cases that went to trial. Non—forensic evidence was found in 59% of
the cases that resulted in a plea bargain, 55% of those that were nolle

prosequi/dismissed and 45% of the trial cases.

 

47
Table 14 Physical Evidence and Charge 1 Results

 

 

 

 

Physical Evidence Charge 1 Results total
Plea Bargain Nolle Prosequi/ Trial‘
(%) Dismissed (%) (%)
n=361 n=478 n=60
forensic evidence 70 (20%) l 15 (24%) 12 (20%) 194
non-forensic 214 (59%) 264 (55%) 27 (45%) 505
evidence
no physical 77 (21%) 99 (21%) 21 (35%) 197
evidence
total 361 478 60 899“

 

 

X2=9.242, df=4 p=.0553, and Contingency Coefficient: c=0.101

‘Trial results are shown in table 15.

“The total is not equal to 905 because there were six cases with unknown
results.

The criteria for statistical significance of the preceding analysis holds true
for this analysis. As a result, forensic evidence appears to have no statistical
significance with the disposition of charge 1 where, p=.0553 and X2=9.242 at df=4
and c=0.101. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected therefore, physical
evidence and the result of charge 1 are independent of each other.

The category of trial has additional results that need to be identified. Table 15
describes the relationship between physical evidence and the trial results of
charge one. Of the trials that resulted in a not guilty verdict, 21% had forensic
evidence, 29% had non-forensic evidence and 50% had no physical evidence

collected. The cases with a guilty verdict had forensic evidence in 32%, non-

forensic evidence in 42% and no physical evidence in only 26% of the cases.

 

48

Table 15 Physical Evidence and Charge 1 Trial Results

 

 

 

 

Physical Evidence Charge 1 Trial Results total
Not Guilty Guilty (%) Plea Nolle
(%) Bargain Prosequi/
(%) Dismissed
4%)

forensic evidence 3 (21%) 6 (32%) 0 2 (1 1%) 1 1
non-forensic 4 (29%) 8 (42%) 6 (86%) 9 (47%) 27
evidence
no physical 7 (50%) 5 (26%) 1 (14%) 8 (42%) 21
evidence
total 14 19 7 I9 59

 

 

X2=9.547, df=6, p=.1451, and V=0.284

The category of plea bargain was added to identify those cases that
started a trial but did not complete it due to a plea bargain. The majority of
these cases had non—forensic evidence (86%). No physical evidence was in 14%
of the trials with a plea bargain. Forensic evidence was not collected in any of
the plea bargain trial cases.

Some of the charge I trials were dismissed or resulted in a nolle prosequi.
Non-forensic evidence was present in 47% of those cases, 42% of those cases
had no physical evidence and 11% had forensic evidence. The disposition of
the charge one trials also had no relationship with physical evidence. The chi
square was 9.547 at a level of significance of 0.1451 .

Charge 2 results are tabulated by physical evidence in Table 16.
Forensic evidence was present in 22% of the cases that resulted in a plea
bargain, 25% of the nolle prosequi/dismissed cases and 37% of the cases that

had charge 2 at trial. For charge 2, non-forensic evidence was in 59% of the

 

49
Table 16 Physical Evidence and Charge 2 Results

 

 

 

 

Physical Evidence Charge 2 total
Results
Plea Bargain Nolle Prosequi/ Trial’
(%) Dismissed (%) (%)
n=268 n=241 n=30
forensic evidence 59 (22%) 60 (25%) 1 I (37%) 130
non-forensic 159 (59%) 135 (56%) 8 (26%) 302
evidence
no physical 50 (19%) 46 (19%) 1 1 (37%) 107
evidence
total 268 241 30 539"

 

 

X2=i 2.184, df=4, p=.016 and Contingency Coefficient: c=0.149

 

‘Trial results are shown in Table 17.
“The total is not equal to 905 because there were five cases with unknown
results and 361 without a second Chang.

plea bargained cases, 56% of the nolle prosequi/dismissed cases and 26% of the
trial cases. No physical evidence was collected in 19% of the plea bargain
cases, 19% of the dismissed cases and 37% of the cases where charge 2 went to
trial.

Physical evidence appears to have a greater association on the results of
charge 2 than it did on charge 1. This is evident in the measure of statistical
significance where the level of significance is .016 and chi square is 12.184 at
df=4 and c=0.149. Therefore, physical evidence and charge 2 results are not
independent of each other but they only have a weak degree of association.

The results of the trials for charge 2 are presented in Table 17. In the cases
with a not guilty verdict, 44% had forensic evidence. 22% had non-forensic
evidence and 33% had no physical evidence. The majority of the guilty verdict

cases had forensic evidence (67%), with non-forensic evidence and no physical

 

50

Table 17 Physical Evidence and Charge 2 Trial Results

 

 

 

 

Physical Evidence Charge 2 Trial Results total
Not Guilty (%) Plea Nolle
Guilty (%) Bargain Prosequi/
(%) Dismissed
(%)

forensic evidence 4 (44.4%) 4 (67%) 0 2 (20%) 1 1
non-forensic 2 (22.2%) 1 (16.6%) 2 (50%) 3 (30%) 8
evidence
no physical 3 (33.3%) 1 (16.6%) 2 (50%) 5 (50%) 1 I
evidence
total 9 6 4 10 29

 

 

X2=6.455, df=6, p=.3742. and V=0.334

evidence cases both comprising 16.6% of the guilty verdict cases. There was no
forensic evidence in the plea bargain cases. Non-forensic evidence and no
physical evidence cases were split evenly at 50% each of the plea bargain
cases. The dismissed trial cases had 50% with no physical evidence, 30% with
non-forensic evidence and 20% forensic evidence cases. The chi square test of

independence indicates that trial outcomes of charge two are independent of

physical evidence with X226.455 at 6 degrees of freedom and p=.3742.

Summary

Physical evidence was collected in 78% of the cases with the evidence of
non-forensic types being collected more than forensic evidence at a rate of 2
to 1. Non-violent/property crimes were the crimes most prosecuted, followed by
violent crimes then ‘other’ crimes. Non-forensic evidence was collected the

most in all crime types. Forensic evidence was collected in about ‘/4 of each

type of crime.

 

51

The type of forensic evidence most analyzed (besides drug cases) was
impression evidence followed by toxicology, serology, trace and finally
questioned documents. Of the individual forensic evidence types, latent prints
was most analyzed followed by alcohol, blood and signatures on questioned
documents.

Statistical analysis revealed that impression evidence was the only
forensic evidence with a relationship with type of crime. The rest of the forensic
evidence types had no statistical relationship.

Non-forensic evidence was found the most in all charge 1 and charge 2
results. In the trial results for charge 1, the guilty verdict was most common
followed by dismissals, then not guilty verdicts and lastly plea bargains. Forensic
evidence and non-forensic evidence were equally present in the guilty verdict
cases for charge 1. No physical evidence was the dominant evidence
characteristic of the trials with a not guilty verdict for charge I.

The observed results for charge 2 trials were dismissals followed by not
guilty. guilty and lastly, plea bargains cases. Forensic evidence was the physical
evidence most found in the guilty verdict cases of charge 2 trials. No physical
evidence was collected in the cases with charge 2 trials being dismissed. There
was no statistical relationships of either charge 1 or charge 2 results with physical

evidence.

 

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

Physical evidence has great potential for assisting in the identification of
criminals. A great deal of time and money is spent in the collection of physical
evidence and in the analysis of forensic evidence. With the potential that
forensic science has, it is worthwhile to identify the impact it has on the
prosecution of criminal cases. By determining which forensic evidence types
play a greater role in a case, investigators and technicians can be instructed to
be more mindful of collecting and analyzing such forensic evidence. Also,
identifying forensic evidence types that are analyzed more often, allows
laboratories the opportunity to expand man-power and request funding to
accommodate the influx. For example, drug cases and drunk driving cases
were such a tremendous portion of the cases that including them in the analysis
skewed the amount of forensic evidence. It is clear that drug and alcohol
analysis takes up a large portion of a forensic laboratory’s time and space.

The study set out to discover how much physical evidence is present in
felony prosecution cases and what effect that evidence might have on the
outcome. It confirmed Peterson’s conclusion that drug cases rely on forensic
evidence and its analysis. They comprise a large portion of cases that are

prosecuted. Peterson reported that one-quarter to one-third of the cases had

52

 

53
lab reports. His study included drug cases. This study has similar findings. With

the drug cases included, forensic evidence was found in almost half of the
cases. Without the drug cases, it was used in only one-quarter of the cases.

Non-forensic evidence was collected more often than forensic evidence.
It was present in almost three—fourths of the cases. Non—forensic evidence
consists of objects like a stolen stereo, a gun, on article of clothing or a screw
driver. No special process is needed to collect or analyze these objects. Police
officers may routinely come across non-forensic evidence in the course of the
investigation, whereas. forensic evidence requires special techniques for its
collection and identification. For example, the crime of ‘carrying a concealed
weapon’ most likely has the weapon confiscated as evidence at the time of
arrest, whereas, discovering the gun which was used to shoot a victim requires
police investigation to locate a weapon. A gun may be recovered, but then.
analysis of the gun and comparison of bullets are scientific analysis
requirements. More work may be necessary to reveal the relationship of the
evidence to the crime.

The cases most prosecuted in this study were non-violent/property crimes.
The type of crimes with the lowest rate were those of a violent nature. This
correlates with Peterson's findings. Most of the cases prosecuted in that study
were non-violent crimes.

The rates of physical evidence distributed by type of crime revealed that
non-forensic evidence appeared the most often in non-violent crimes. Violent
crimes had the least amount of non-forensic evidence. Two-thirds of non-violent

crime cases had some form of non—forensic evidence. This may be due to the

 

54

fact that non-violent/property crimes usually involve objects like tools and/or
property that were stolen or damaged. This creates a greater potential for non-
forensic evidence to be collected. Crimes against a person tend to not involve
property or tools. There are exceptions of course (i.e. robberies and felonious
assault) where an assailant uses a weapon or steals. More than half of the non-
violent crime cases had non-forensic evidence.

Peterson reported that the violent crimes of homicide and rape have
more forensic evidence than burglary and robbery crimes. The present study
produced similar results. It was found that violent crimes have more forensic
evidence than cases of non-violent crimes. It could be concluded that violent
crimes are considered more serious than non-violent crimes therefore, sparking
the resolve of the investigators to collected as much evidence as possible.

The type of crimes which had forensic evidence in the majority of the
cases were drug cses and drunk driving cases. drunk driving cases rely on
forensic analysis to determine a crime has actually been committed.

In this study, latent prints were the forensic evidence most analyzed. This
result corresponds with the findings in Peterson’s study where fingerprint
evidence was second only to drug evidence. In the present study, the second
most frequent forensic evidence was alcohol analysis followed by blood
evidence. These results differ from Peterson’s study which found firearm analysis
to be the third most frequent evidence type followed by blood evidence. In the

present study, firearms analysis was rated the sixth most frequent forensic

 

55

evidence preceded by questioned documents evidence. Peterson’s study did
not include any drunk driving nor questioned document type cases‘.

The next forensic evidence types to be most collected were hair, shoe—
print, glass, then semen. This result is in contrast to Peterson’s study where semen
was found to be more common than the forensic evidence types of hair, shoe-
prints or glass. In the present study, the forensic evidence types least collected
were (in descending order) fibers, arson, toolmarks, paint, tire tracks, soil, and
serial number restoration.

When the forensic evidence types were classified, impression evidence
was most collected followed very closely by serology evidence. The least
common forensic evidence types analyzed were trace evidence followed by
questioned documents. This concurs with Peterson’s suggestion that evidence
that has the potential to conclusively link a suspect to a crime (e.g. fingerprints)
are more likely to be analyzed. The more definitive the results of the forensic
evidence analysis in incriminating a defendant the more power it can have
towards assisting in a conviction. The forensic evidence types that only produce
results which indicate a probable relation to a crime or criminal may not even
be searched for by the investigation team. The more the evidence can link a
defendant to the crime the better. Trace evidence and serology evidence
cannot conclusively identify a person or object as can fingerprints, firearms or
toolmarks. There are exceptions such as paint or glass fragments fitting like

puzzle pieces. But, those instances do not happen often.

 

1 Note: Questioned document evidence is most commonly found in forgery. counterfeit.
and uttering and publishing crimes.

 

56

Tests of statistical significance indicated the relationship crime type has
on forensic evidence was not statistically significant except for impression
evidence. Impression evidence had a weak degree of association to the type
of crime being prosecuted. Peterson’s study also showed no statistical
significance in any of the study sites between type of crime and forensic
evidence. The only exception was in Peoria where serology evidence was
shown to have a statistical relationship with crime type.

In the present study. serology evidence was used more in violent crimes
than in the non-violent ones. This could be explained by realizing that violent
crimes produce more physical interaction between assailant and the victim.
Blood and semen are more likely to be present in crimes where the victim and
assailant have physical interaction such as rape and assault cases. This is in
opposition to property crimes, where the criminal interacts with the environment
more than a human. When a burglar commits a crime in a closed store at one
o'c lock in the morning, there is not likely to be human interaction. Therefore,
evidence collected may tend to be impression evidence, fingerprints on the
cash register or the tool mark on the door.

The ’other’ types of crime rarely had impression or trace evidence
collected. These crimes include criminal weapon charges, perjury. gambling,
and false pretenses (just to name a few.) Many of the crimes are ’victimless’,
where there is no victim against whom the crime has been committed.
Therefore, there is little need for blood or fingerprint or hair analysis.

The last characteristic of physical evidence looked at in this study was the

association it had with the outcome of the case. The results of this study concur

 

"H"

57

with the literature where plea bargains were a very common occurrence (40%
of charge one and 49% of charge two.)

Physical evidence was found to have no statistical relationship to the
disposition of charge one. Forensic evidence was nearly equally distributed in
charge one outcomes. It was present in 27% of the plea bargain cases, 25% of
the nolle prosequi cases and 24% of the trials for charge one. Non-forensic
evidence was present in more than two-thirds of plea outcomes, three-fourths of
the nolle prosequi cases and almost two-thirds of charge one trials.

There was a statistical relationship between charge two results and
physical evidence. There was a weak degree of association. Forensic evidence
comprised 23% of the plea bargain cases, 34% of the nolle prosequi cases and
41% of the cases that charge two went to trial. Charge two outcomes had non-
forensic evidence present in an average of 69% of the cases.

In the present study, trial results were also analyzed. No statistical
relationship was found between charge one and physical evidence nor charge
two and physical evidence.

The comparison with Peterson’s study is difficult because physical
evidence was not compared as forensic and non-forensic evidence combined.
In that study, non-forensic and forensic evidence were analyzed separately.
Also, the outcome of the cases was classified as a ’conviction’ or ‘no
conviction‘, regardless of being a plea bargain conviction or a trial verdict. It
was concluded that forensic evidence had no statistical significance on the
conviction, except in one of the jurisdictions. There was only a slight association

between forensic evidence and the outcome of the cases. Peterson also

 

58

calculated the significance of non-forensic evidence in the conviction of a
case. The results were that non-forensic evidence has a "sizeable and
statistically significant relationship” in all but one of the study sites.

This study has shown that physical evidence was collected in the majority
of the prosecuted cases with forensic evidence being present in one-quarter of
them. In the pursuit of justice, physical evidence is collected with the intentions
that it will assist the process of prosecuting a crime. It is only one component of
the system. There are many other factors which can affect the prosecution of a
crime. Those factors are discussed in the last section of this report in hopes that
future studies will uncover more of the characteristics of criminal case

prosecutions.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

The data base collected on the 1303 cases has great potential for
continued research studies. This study conducted a minor fraction of the
possible analyses that could be done. Many factors play a role in the course of
prosecuting a case. With this data, it is possible to ascertain the association of
the numerous variables that comprise a criminal case.

A future study could focus on the factors which influence charge
reductions. The data was set up to indicate the characteristics of each charge.
Therefore, it is possible to identify the characteristics of charge reduction. For
example. suppose charge 1 was criminal sexual conduct (CSC) 15' degree with
an outcome of nolle prosequi. lf charge 2 was CSC 2nd degree resulting in a
plea bargain, one would wonder what situations caused this reduction in
charge. It is possible the forensic evidence identified the defendant as the
assailant or it could be the number of eyewitnesses. The relationship physical
evidence has with reductions of charges could be determined through various
statistical analyses.

What impact does the defendant’s prior history play in the prosecution of
the case? Maybe the defendant realized it was easier to plead guilty to a lesser
charge knowing that the 2 prior convictions of assault may hinder his chances of
acquittal. Identifying those defendant who had prior arrests and convictions

might reveal a greater rate of plea bargain or stiffer sentences.

59

60

Upon conviction of a crime, the factors that may influence sentencing
could be studied. Do the cases that have guilty pleas vary in sentence length
compared to those convicted by a trial? How does forensic evidence analysis
effect the sentencing of a defendant compared to those defendants whose
cases had no physical evidence? Does having physical evidence affect the
harshness of the sentence?

The effect the defendant's age, race, or gender might play in sentencing
or charge outcome could be explored. Also, the relationship the defendant has
with the victim might have an impact on charge outcome or sentencing.

Another future study could be to describe the characteristics of cases
that went to trial. How many cases were there? The type of crime could be a
factor for cases resolving in a trial. Expert witness testimony may have an impact
in the outcome of a trial. Or does the presence or absence of forensic evidence
and/or non-forensic have a bearing on the sentencing of guilty verdicts?

The questions are endless. There is so much potential to uncover the
myriad of characteristics that may effect the prosecution of a crime. I hope
that the scientific exploration for the answers to the effects evidence has in a
prosecution of a criminal case continue. This study only uncovered a small

portion of the answers that could be revealed.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

 

a
a

V4

V5

APPENDIX A

CODEBOOK FOR PROSECUTOR CASE FILES

Case #

 

Number of defendants in case
Number of victims in case

Location of crime
0 unknown
1 city
2vmage
3 township
4 university
5 Lansing community college

Name of crime location
0 unknown
1 East Lansing
2Landng
3 Lansing community college
4 Lansing Township
5 Leslie
6 Mason
7 Meridian Township
8 M.S.U
9 Williamston
10 Webberville
1 1 Other unknown
12 Holt

Date of crime
Month

Day

Year

13 Onongada
15 Delhi

16 Haslett

17 Vevay

18 Wheatfield
19 Bunkerhill
24 Stockbridge
25 Aurelius

26 Locke Twp
28 Leroy Twp
33 Alaiedon Twp
36 Dansville

Reference #-

 

62

APPENDIX A
V6 Time crime occurred __
0 unknown
1 0000-0800
2 0801 -1 800
3 1801-2400
8 multiple
V7 Day crime occurred _
0 unknown
1 Monday 5 Friday
2 Tuesday 6 Saturday
3 Wednesday 7 Sunday
4 Thursday 8 Multiple days
V8 Submitting Agent _
0 unknown
1 MSP 11 Meridian Township
2 MSP Lansing Post 12 Lansing Community College
3 lngham County Sheriff (ICSD) 13 M.S.U. DPS
4 East Lansing PD. 14 Tri County Metro (TCM)
5 Lansing PD. 15 MSP Dice
6 Leslie PD. 16 MESC (Michigan
7 Mason P.D. Employment Security
8 Webberville P.D. Commission)
9 Williamston PD. 17 PACT (Meridian and MSU
10 Lansing Township DPS)

V9 Statements/Testimony given by co—defendants _
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V10 If yes, how many co-def's testimony?
V1 1 Eyewitness(es) testimony
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V12 If yes, how many eyewitnesses?

 

63

APPENDIX A

EVIDENCE COLLECTED
V13 Non-Forensic evidence

0 unknown

1 Yes

2 No
IF YES:
V14 Personal effects (clothes, wallet, etc.)

1 Yes

2 No

V15 Fruits of crime (things taken in crime)
1 Yes
2 No

V16 Prima Facie evidence (evidence sufficient to establish
a fact of a case unless disproved)

0 unknown

1 Yes

2 No

V17 Weapon
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V18 Tools
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

64
APPENDIX A

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

V19 Was evidence collected that needed to be analyzed.
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

If No, go to Defendant Info V-79
If Yes. continue: (NOTE: For v20—v73 0=unknown and 9=none.)

V20 Latent prints
1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes, collected but not analyzed

V21 if yes, were they related to the crime
1 yes, related
2 no, not related
3 inconclusive

V22 Firearms
1 Yes
2 No
3 yes, collected but not analyzed

V23 If yes, shell/bullet comparisons
1 Yes
2 No

V24 Ifyes, it is
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V25 Toolmarks
1 Yes
2 No
3 yes. collected but not analyzed

V26 If yes, it is
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

65
APPENDIX A

V27 Serial number restoration
1 yes
2 no
3 yes, collected but not analyzed

V28 If yes:
1 whole number restored
2 partial number restored

V29 If yes, it is
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V30 Questioned Documents Analysis

1 yes
2 no
lfyes
V31 Check signature
1 yes
2 no

3 yes, collected but not analyzed

V32 Document was:
1 related to crime
2 unrelated to crime
3 inconclusive

V33 Other documents
1 yes
2 no
3 yes, collected but not analyzed

V34 Documents were:
1 related to crime
2 unrelated to crime
3 inconclusive

V35 Arson
1 yes
2 no
3 yes, collected but not analyzed

66
APPENDIX A

V36 If yes, was accelerant present
1 yes
2 no
3 inconclusive

V37 If present, type of accelerant:
1 gasoline
2 kerosene
3 fuel oil
4 other

V38 Glass
1 yes
2 no
3 yes, collected but not analyzed

V39 If yes, it was
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V40 Fiber
1 yes
2 no
3 collected but not analyzed

V41 if yes, it was
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V42 Paint
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

V43 if yes, it was
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V44 Soils
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

67
APPENDIX A

V45 if yes, it was
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V46 Shoe-print
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

V47 if yes, it was
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V48 Tire tracks
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

V49 if yes, it was
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V50 Hair
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

V51 if yes, is it
1 crime related
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

V52 if analyzed, type of hair
1 human head
2 human body
3 human pubic
4 combination of 1-3
5 non-human

68
APPENDIX A

V53 Semen
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

V54 If yes, results. semen is:
1 related to crime (matches def., etc)
2 not crime related
3 inconclusive

v55 Blood
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

V56If analyzed, was it blood
1 yes
2 no
3 inconclusive

V57if blood, is it human
1 yes
2 no
3 inconclusive

V58 if blood, was it typed
1 yes
2 no
3 inconclusive

V59 Were other tests done on blood
1 yes, BAC 5 Le a-,be b+

2 no Le a-,be b—
3 toxicology 6 4 8. 5
4 PGM

V60 Result, blood is
1 related to crime (matches def., etc)

2 not related to crime
3 inconclusive

V61 Toxicological exam (including BAC)
1 yes
2 no

69
APPENDIX A

If yes, did if test for:

V62 Poison
1 yes
2 no

V63 Drugs
1 yes
2 no

V64 Alcohol
1 yes breath 4 urine
2 no 5 breath and blood
3 blood

V65 Post Mortem
1 yes
2 no

V66 if yes, manner of death
1 natural
2 homicide
3 suicide
4 accident
5 inconclusive

V67 Drugs (Controlled substances = CS.)
1 yes
2 no
3 collected, not analyzed

If Yes, substance found to be:
V68 Heroin
1 yes
2 no

V69 Cocaine
1 yes
2 no

V70 Marijuana
1 yes
2 no

70

APPENDIX A
V71 PCP _
1 yes
2 no
V72 LSD _
1 yes
2 no
V73 Other _ _
1. non CS. 8. urea
2. no 9 none
3. diazepam 10. plant (non MJ)
4. yes but unk 1 1. unk pharmaceutical
5. valium 12. Tylenol w/codeine
6. chlordiazepoxide 13. methamphetamine
7. Lidocaine and

Phenobarbital

71
APPENDIX A

EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
Case #

 

V74 Was there an expert witness called to testify
0 unknown
1 yes
2 no

V75 If yes, how many?

V76 Did any experts testify at trial?
0 unknown
1 yes
2 no
3 no trial for this case

V77 If yes, how many?

V78 Area of Expertise
1 yes
2 no

A. Drugs 0Unk
1 yes
2 no

8. Latent prints 0unk
1 yes
2 no

C. Firearms, toolmarks 0unk
1 yes
2 no

D. Serology 0unk
1 yes
2 no

E. Toxicology 0unk
1 yes
2 no

F. Pathology 0unk
1 yes
2 no

G. Trace 0unk
1 yes
2 no

H. Medical 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

I. BAC Analyzer 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

J. Dog tracker 0unk
1 yes
2 no

K. Business/ insurance 0unk
investigator 1 yes
2 no

L. Arson/electrical 0 unk
inspectors 1 yes
2 no

M. Question Doc. 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

72

73

APPENDIX A

DEFENDANT 1 INFORMATION

Case #

Reference #-

 

V79 Race
0 unknown
1 White
2 Black American

3 Hispanic American
4 Asian American

5 African
6 Cuban

V80 Age

V81 Date of Birth
Month
Day
Year

V82 Gender
0 unknown
1 Male
2 Female

V83 Occupation“
0 unknown
1 Unemployed
2 Blue collar
3 Professional

4 Business owner/seIf-employed
5 Student

V84 Place of Residence
0 unknown
1 lngham County
2 Outside lngham Co.
3 Non-resident of Michigan

6 Sales person
7 police officer
8 other
12 entertainer
13 retired

 

74

APPENDIX A
V85 If Resident of Michigan:
0 unknown
1 East Lansing 13 Onondaga
2 Lansing 14 Carol
3 Lansing community 15 Delhi
college
4 Lansing Township 16 Haslett
5 Leslie 17 Vevay
6 Mason 18 Wheatfield
7 Meridian Township 19 Bunkerhill
8 Michigan State 20 Eaton Co.
University
9 Williamston 21 White Oak Twp
10 Webberville 22 Walker
1 1 Other unknown 23 Grand Rapids
12 Holt 24 Stockbridge

HISTORY OF DEFENDANT'S PRIORS

V86 Total Number of Arrests

V87 # of misdemeanor convictions
V88 # of felony convictions

V89 Total # of prior convictions

V90 Habitual Criminal
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

PRESENT CRIMINAL ARREST

V91 Arrest status
0 unknown
1 arrested at scene
2 arrested leaving scene
3 arrested elsewhere subsequent to crime

V92 Did defendant make admission?
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

——.———————

25 Aurelius
26 Locke Twp
27 Dewitt

28 Leroy Twp

29 Grand Ledge
30 Flint

31 Alto

32 Taylor

33 Alaiedon Twp
34 Fowlerville

35 St. John

36 Dansville

75
APPENDIX A

V93 Did defendant confess?
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V94 Was Psychological examination given?
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V95 If yes, was it for competency to stand trial?
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V96 If not, specify:
1 Sanity defense
2 Criminal Responsibility

V97 Was defendant given polygraph examination?
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V98 If yes, outcome of polygraph exam:
0 unknown
1 deceptive, no confession
2 deceptive, confession
3 truthful
4 inconclusive

V99 Total number of charges for defendant:

76
APPENDIX A

DEFENDANT 1 Indicate Charge #

Case #

 

V100 Type of crime
0 unknown
1 Crime against person
2 Property crime
3 Attempt (Inchoate)
4 Vice crime (drug)
5 other

V101 Actual charge
SEE PAGE 83 FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CHARGE CODES

V102 If delivery or possession, specify drug

0 unknown

1 cocaine 8 valium

2 marijuana 9 NONE

3 heroin 10 chlordiazepoxide

4 imitation cont. subst. 1 1 Fironol

5 PCP 12 Hydrocodone Bitartrate
6 LSD 13 coke and heroin

7 diazepam

V103 Charge type
1 felony
2 misdemeanor
3 supplemental

V104 Outcome of charge

0 Unknown

1 Plea of a lesser charge 8 Nolo Contendere

2 Plea to charge before trial 9 none

3 Nolle Prosequi (Nolle Pro) 10 nolle pro-~double

4 Dismissed jeopardy

5 Plea to attempt 1 1 nolle pro--cannot sustain
(Inchoate) burden of proof

6 Trial 12 nolle pro-victim recants

7 Nolle Pro--in the interest of
justice

77

APPENDIX A
V105 If trial
IBench

2 Jury
V106 If trial, outcome

0 Unknown

1 Not guilty 6 Not guilty by

2 Guilty as charged reason of insanity

3 Plea during trial 7 Nolle Pro

4 Mistrial 8 Guilty of other

5 dismissed 9 none

PRETRIAL INFORMATION

V142 Preliminary Hearing
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V143 If yes, outcome:
0 unknown
1 dismissed
2 bound over

V144 Grand Jury
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V145 Ifyes, outcome:
0 unknown
1 no indictment
2 indicted

10 Incompetent
(Nolle Pro)

11 plea to lesser

12 nolle pro--witness
fails to appear

78

APPENDIX A
SENTENCE
V146 Jail
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

3 yes, but suspended

V147 If yes, how long?*
Specify" month

V148 Prison
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes, but suspended on stipulation

V149 If yes, how long?* Min Max
Specify“ Min Max mon
V150 Probation
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No
3 HYTP (Holmes Youth Training Program)
V151 Ifyes, length of time for probation.*
Time month
Probation terms 0 unk

1 yes
2 no

a.Sentry 0unk
1 yes
2 no

b. community service 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

c. LASER 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

d. counseling 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

e. work/school 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

f. urine drops 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

V152 Restitution
0 unknown
1 Yes
2 No

V153 If yes, how much?

V154 Fine
0 unknown
1 Yes

2No

V155 If yes, how much?

79
APPENDIX A

g.tether 0unk
1 yes
2 no

h. drug program 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

i. AA 0unk
1 yes
2 no

j. CATS 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

k. revoke license 0 unk
1 yes
2 no

I. bootcamp 0unk
1 yes
2 no

 

80
APPENDIX A

VICTIM INFORMATION Victim #

Reference #-

Case #

 

ITEM

V156 Nature of victim __ __
0 unknown
Ipemon
2 retail establishment
3 warehouse (name)
4 other business
Sschool
6 government building
7 automobile or other vehicle
8 place of residence
9 Victimless crime
10 Hospital or church

 

If Person. continue:

V157 Race __
0 unknown
1 white
2 black
3H6paMc
4 other

V158 Age _

V159 Gender _
0 unknown
1 male
2 female

V160 Place of Residence“

0 unknown
1 East Lansing
2Landng
3 Lansing community
college
4 Lansing Township
5 Leslie
6 Mason
7 Meridian Township
8 Michigan State
University
9 Williamston
10 Webberville
11 Other unknown
12 Holt

V161 Occupation"

0 unknown

1 Unemployed
2 Blue collar

3 Professional

4 Business owner/self-

employed
5 Student

0 unknown
1 yes
2 no

V163 If yes.

0 unknown relation
1 acquaintance
2 relative

81

APPENDIX A

13 Onondaga
14 Carol
15 Delhi

16 Haslett

17 Vevay

18 Wheatfield
19 Bunkerhill
20 Eaton Co.

21 White Oak Twp
22 Walker

23 Grand Rapids
24 Stockbridge

6 Sales person
7 police officer
8 other

12 entertainer
13 retired

V162 Did victim know defendant prior to incident

25 Aurelius
26 Locke Twp
27 Dewitt

28 Leroy Twp

29 Grand Ledge
30 Flint

31 Alto

32 Taylor

33 Alaiedon Twp
34 Fowlerville

35 St. John

36 Dansville

 

V164 If relative, victim is
0 unknown
1 wife
2 husband
3 mother
4 father
5 daughter
6son
7 brother
8 sister
9 grandmother

82
APPENDIX A

10 step-daughter
l 1 cousin

12 ex wife

13 step sister

14 niece

15 step mother
16 step daughter
17 in laws

99 none

V165 If acquaintance, victim is

0 unknown
1 friend

2 girlfriend
3 boyfriend
4 other

V166 Damages to victim

0 unknown
1 killed

2 taken to hospital

3 treated at scene only
4 no treatment for injuries
5 non-physical/property damages

6 no injuries

If there is more than one VICTIM, collect data for each.

*******¥**¥***********#***********¥***********************************#*******¥******

IF MULTIPLE DEFENDANT CASE. Set codebook aside until information on all
defendants has been collected. Attach data for each defendant and use some
code number. Reference number may be different.

***##*****¥*********t**t*********************¥***************************************

 

APPENDIX A

CATEGORIES FOR THE VARIABLE OF ACTUAL CHARGE

V101 Actual Charge (pertains to ALL charges and defendants)

0 unknown

1 arson

2 assault &/or battery

3 auto theft/UDAA

4 breaking &/or entering

5 assault W/I GBH

6 counterfeit

7 criminal sexual conduct (unk deg)
CSC

8 delivery of controlled substance

9 felonious assault

10 larceny

11 murder Ist

12 uttering 8. publishing

13 use Cs device (mace)

14 armed robbery

15 unarmed robbery

16 OUIL/ UBAL

17 forgery

18 possession of controlled substance

19 retail fraud

20 carrying concealed weapon
(CCW)

21 possession w/ intent to deliver

22 conspiracy (misdemeanor)

23 Malicious Destruction Qt Prop.

24 use of controlled substance

25 R 8. C > 100

26 Supplemental

27 embezzlement

28 felonious firearm

29 escape prison

30 no account check

31 financial transaction device

32 suspended/ revoked license

33 R 8 C < 100

34 assault W/l rob unarmed

35 Assault W/ I rob armed

36 murder 2nd

37 remove body

38 false pretense

39 obtain by fraud

40 supplemental/ Habitual

41 negligent homicide

42 possess switchblade

43 possess brace knuckles

44 disorderly person

45 Non Sufficient Funds (NSF)
46 Obstruct justice

47 child abuse

48 joyride

49 open alcohol auto

50 assault W/l CSC

51 open intoxicant

52 weapon auto

53 expired plates

54 88E W/l felonious assault

55 indecent exposure

56 assault W/I murder

57 manufacturing Cont. Subst.
58 leaving scene accident

59 kidnapping

60 abscond on bond _

61 reckless driving

62 carrying dangerous weapon
63 carry pistol W/O license

64 maintain gamble room

65 pass. short-barreled shotgun
66 assault w/lntent maim

67 resisting/opposing officer
68 pass. Firearm on school prop.
69 discharge firearm

70 fall to present for inspection
71 CSC 1

72 CSC 2

73 CSC 3

74 CSC 4

75 careless discharge-prop. damage
76 altering operator license

77 pass. Firearm

78 aggravated assault

79 ATM fraud

 

80 incite minor to commit crime
81 flee/elude police
82 operating unlicensed daycare
83 false information to obtain
84 purchase pistol w/o license
85 simple assault
86 no license87 perjury
88 failure to return rented prop.
89 attend dog fight
90 use of canceled FTD
91 pass. burglary tools
92 pass. weapon w/ unlawful
intent

93 willfully annoy
94 false police report
95 computer damage >100
96 arson-prepare to burn
97 pass. unlocking device
98 bank robbery
99 NONE
100 involuntary

manslaughter
101 poss. counterfeiting tools
102 trespassing
103 indecency between

male 8. female
104 parental kidnapping
105 conspiracy-del. cont.

substance

84

APPENDIX A

106 conspiracy-false pretense

107 conspiracy-A 8. B

108 conspiracy-B 8 E

109 conspiracy-larceny

1 10 conspiracy-MDOP

1 1 1 aiming firearm w/

malice

1 12 conspiracy. possess.
bomb w/o permit

1 13 poss. bomb

1 14 furnish false info.

1 15 disturbing the peace

1 16 impaired driving

I 17 maliciously killing a dog

1 18 safe breaking

1 19 altering operator’s
license (ops)

120 using other person’s ops

121 felony driving

122 obscene conduct

123 possess an automatic

weapon
I24 transporting a pistol

 

APPENDIX B

 

APPENDIX B

A Violent Crimes against a person

2* assault &/or battery

5 assault W/l GBH

7 criminal sexual
conduct(unk deg)CSC

9 felonious assault

1 1 murder Ist

14 armed robbery

15 unarmed robbery

34 assault W/l rob unarmed
35 Assault W/l rob armed

36 murder 2nd

41 negligent
homicide

47 child abuse

50 assault W/l CSC

56 assault W/l
murder

59 kidnapping

66 assault w/Intent
maim

71 CSC 1

72 CSC 2

B. Non-Violent/ Property Crimes

I arson

3 auto theft/UDAA

4 breaking &/or entering

10 larceny

12 uttering & publishing

19 retail fraud

23 Malicious Destruction
DfErop. (MDOP)

25 R 8. C > 100

C. ‘Other’ Types of Crimes

6 counterfeiting

13 use Cs device (mace)

16 OUIL/ UBAL

17 forgery

20 carrying concealed

weapon (CCW)

22 conspiracy
(misdemeanor)

26 Supplemental

28 felonious firearm

27 embezzlement

33 R 8. C < 100

48 joyride

79 ATM fraud

88 failure to return
rented prop.

95 computer
damage >100

60 abscond on bond

61 reckless driving

62 carrying

dangerous weapon

63 carry pistol W/O
license

64 maintain gamble
room

65 pass. short—
barreled shotgun

85

CATEGORIES OF TYPES OF CRIMES

73 CSC 3

74 CSC 4

78 aggravated assault

85 simple assault

93 willfully annoy

100 involuntary
manslaughter

104 parental
kidnapping

107 conspiracy-A 8. B

121 felony driving

96 arson-prepare to
burn

98 bank robbery

102 trespassing

108 conspiracy-B 8. E

109 conspiracy-larceny

1 10 conspiracy-MDOP

1 18 safe breaking

92 poss. weapon w/
unlawful intent

94 false police report

97 pass. unlocking
device (MSU .ord.)

101 poss. counterfeiting
tools

103 indecency between
male 8. female

 

86
APPENDIX B

C. ‘Other’ Types of Crimes Cont’d

29 escape prison

30 no account check

31 financial transaction
dech

32 suspended/ revoked
license

37 remove body

38 false pretense

39 obtain by fraud

40 supplemental/
Habitual

42 possess switchblade

43 possess brace
knucHes

44 disorderly person

45 Non Sufficient Funds
(NSF)

46 Obstruct justice

49 open alcohol auto

51 open intoxicant

52 weapon auto

53 expired plates

55 indecent exposure

58 leaving scene
accident

67 resisting/opposing
officer
68 pass. Firearm on
school prop.
69 discharge firearm
70 fall to present for
inspection
76 altering operator
license
77 pass. Firearm
80 incite minor to
commit crime
81 flee/elude police
82 operating
unlicensed daycare
83 false info to obtain
84 purchase pistol
w/o license
86 no license
87 perjury
89 attend dog fight
90 use of canceled
FTD
91 pass. burglary tools

106 conspiracy-false
pretense

I 1 1 aiming firearm w/
malice

1 12 consp. poss. bomb
w/o permit

1 13 pass. bomb

1 14 furnish false info.

1 15 disturbing the
peace

1 16 impaired driving

1 17 maliciously killing a
dog

1 19 altering operator's
Iic. (ops)

120 using other person's
ops

122 obscene conduct

123 possession of an
automatic weapon

124 transporting a pistol

 

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

UNIFORM CRIME REPORT: INDEX AND NON-INDEX CRIMES

A. Index Crimes

0 Murder
0 Rape
. Robbery

. Aggravated Assault

B. Non-Index Crimes
o Negligent Manslaughter
o Other Assaults

o Forgery and Counterfeiting

0 Fraud

0 Embezzlement
0 Stolen Property
o Vandalism

. Weapons

0 Prostitution and
Commercialized Vice

0 Sex Offenses (not rape or
prostitution)

o Burglary
. Larceny
0 Motor Vehicle Theft

0 Arson

0 Drug Laws
. Gambling

. Offenses Against Family and
Children

0 Driving Under the Influence (OUIL)
a Liquor Laws

0 Drunkenness

o Disorderly Conduct

. Vagrancy

. All Other Offenses

87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boland, B. et al. (1983). Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1979. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

del Carmen, R.V., (1991). Criminal procedure: Law and practice. Pacific Grove.
California: Brooks/Cole.

Eck, J.E. (1983). Solving Crimes: the Investigation of Burglary and Robbery.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Ericson, R. (1981). Making Crime: A Study of Detective Work. Toronto:
Buttervvorths.

Garofalo, J. (1991). "Police, Prosecutors, and Felony Attrition.” Journal of Criminal
Justice. Q, 439—449.

Greenwood, T.W. and Petersilia, J. (1975). The Criminal Investigation Process.
Santa Monica: Rand Corp.

Hall Williams, J.E. (Ed) (1988). Role of the Prosecutor: Report of the International
Criminal Justice Seminar held at the London School of Economics and
Political Science. London: Avebury.

lmwinkelreid, E.J. (Ed.) (1981). Scientific and Expert Evidence. (2nd edition) New
York: Practicing Law lnst..

Jacoby, J.E. et al. (1982). Prosecutorial Decisionmaking: a National Study.
Washington. DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Lab evidence = tougher sentences. USA Today, April 1987, 1_1_5_, 15.

Levin, J. (1983). Elementary Statistics in Social Research. (3rd edition) New York:
Harper 8. Row.

Marcus, WD. (1989). Trial Preparation for Prosecutors. New York: Wiley Law
Publications.

88

89

Mcdonald, W.F. ( I 982). Police-Prosecutors Relations in the United States: Executive
Summary. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. National Institute of
Justice.

Mcdonald, W.F. (Ed.) (1979). The Prosecutor. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Peterson. J.L. (1984). Forensic Evidence and the Police: The Effects of Scientific
Evidence on Criminal Investigations. Washington, DC: US Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Peterson, J. L et al. (1986). Forensic Science and the Courts: The Uses and Effects
of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Case Processing-final report.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Peterson, J.L. (1987). Use of Forensic Evidence by the Police and Courts.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Research Management Associates, Inc. (1987). Improving Evidence Gathering
Through Police and Prosecutor Coordination. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Roberts, P. and Willmore, C (1993) The Role of Forensic Science Evidence In
Criminal Proceedings. London: The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

Saks, M.J. and Van Duizend, R. (1983). The Use of Scientific Evidence in Litigation.
National Center for State Courts.

Seiden, MD. (1992). “Physical Evidence in Criminal Cases.” Trial. August, @(8).

Thomas, W.A. (Ed.) (1974). Scientists in the Legal System: Tolerated Meddlers or
Essential Contributors? Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, inc.

 

   

nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
31293015592615