Improving the Production and Use of Forensic Science, 5 U.S. counties, 2006-2009 (ICPSR 36727)
This study collection sought to thoroughly understand the creation, testing, and use of forensic science in five jurisdictions across the country. A random sample was selected of recent criminal cases in the following jurisdictions and tracked from investigation to adjudication to understand how forensic evidence functions:
- Sacramento County, CA: 990 cases
- Segwick County, KS: 936 cases
- Allegheny County, PA: 978 cases
- Bexar County (San Antonio), TX: 936 cases
- King County, WA: 892 cases
The Principal Investigator sought answers to the following seven primary research questions:
- How often is forensic evidence collected and analyzed and how is it used pre-arrest?
- What are the outcomes of forensic evidence testing?
- What is the effect of forensic evidence on arrest and charging?
- How does forensic evidence affect the plea-bargaining process?
- What effect does forensic evidence have on conviction and sentencing outcomes?
- Does the turnaround time for analysis of forensic evidence have any impact on case disposition?
- Does the institutional configuration of the crime laboratory have any effect on its productivity?
Data for the following types of forensic testing are included in this data collection: hair, fibers, glass, paint, gas chromatography / mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy / energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX), physical match, drug identification, toxicology, serology, combined DNA index system (CODIS), DNA short tandem repeat (Y-STR), blood pattern, test fire, and comparison scope.