Objective: Students need to demonstrate an understanding of evidence admissibility laws and how they evolve over time. The report should focus on the legal arguments of the cases. Formatting and length requirements: •APA formatting and citation for any source used (see https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. for a good APA guide). This includes a reference list and in-text citation. You do not need an abstract for this assignment.
•Every source you use, including the textbook, needs to be cited in your reference list. Each reference list entry must have a corresponding in-text citation. •12 pt. Times New Roman font. •Double-spaced with 1-inch margins. •Three pages of content (750 words). Do not include your title page or reference list in your page count. Do not use excessive quotes. If you can re-state something in your own words, do so. You can go over this word count, if needed. Content:
•Select a case from the list below and write a short summary of the case. Answer the following: ◦Who were the parties involved? ◦What was the case about? ◦What was the main legal issue and how was it resolved? What were the legal arguments? ◦How did the case impact forensic evidence admissibility or expert testimony? •Do some research and select a past or a more recent case that is related to your selected case. This case should relate to the rules of admissibility from your original case. For the case you select, be sure to answer the following: ◦Who were the parties involved? ◦What was the case about? ◦What was the main legal issue and how was it resolved? What were the legal arguments? ◦How did the case impact forensic evidence admissibility or expert testimony? ◦For a past case, answer at least one of the below questions: ◾In what way did your selected case change/challenge (e.g. the past case allowed X but your case established X was not allowed or vice versa) the past case? ◾OR in what way did your selected case build upon (e.g. past cases said a judge can only rule on established scientific techniques, but your case allowed judges to rule on both new techniques and established scientific techniques) the past case? ◦For a more recent case, answer at least one of the below questions: ◾How has the recent case built upon your selected case (e.g. a new technique was accepted as admissible evidence in the recent case because your selected case established the admissibility of the evidence)? ◾OR how has the recent case changed/challenged your selected case (e.g. your selected case stated X was not admissible, but the recent case accepted X as admissible evidence)?