ng any number of phenomena but it must be recognized that relatively few local or community law enforcement agencies possess the kind of crime scene investigation resources that one finds on television programs like CSI (Brandl, 2008a). The scientific method is nevertheless integral to the ways in which law enforcement officers or criminalists/forensic scientists go about observing a phenomenon, gathering data, formulating a hypothesis, and testing the viability of that hypothesis (Parkinson, 2008).
As noted by Calvi and Coleman (2004), scientific evidence has become increasingly significant in shaping the outcome of criminal trials. Technological advances have been made in every societal endeavor and police work is no exception. For many years, the courts have given credence to certain kinds of scientific evidence such as fingerprints, firearms identification through ballistic tests, chemical tests for alcohol or drug use, handwriting samples, and photographs. However, Calvi and Coleman (2004) stated that the courts do not routinely accept the use of evidence gathered through processes like hypnosis and polygraph and are used only if both parties at trial agree.
Additionally, Calvi and Coleman (2004, p. 104) state that "courts do not rush to endorse technological advances, but today cases are decided by micro analysis of fibers, analysis of bite marks, and neutron activation analysis of evidence." As is the case in civil court, the credibility of this kind of forensic evidence depends on the party's ability to show the fact-finder that the test or tests were conducted in a fair manner by a qualified person. Thus, in considering forensic evidence and its usefulness in criminal justice proceedings, it is important to recognize that individuals presenting themselves as forensic experts must in fact be able to demonstrate competency and to further demonstrate that they have followed the scientific method in arriving at a...