Criminalistics
Article by:
Barnett, Peter D. Forensic Science Associates, Richmond, California.
Publication year:2014
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1036/1097-8542.757510
Content
● Education
● Specialists
● Analytical techniques
● Controversy
● Bibliography
● Additional Readings
Criminalistics is the science and profession dealing with the recognition, collection, identification,
individualization, and interpretation of physical evidence, and the application of the natural sciences
to law-science matters. The term originated from the book Handbuch für Untersuchungsrichter als
System der Kriminalistik (3d ed., 1898) by Hans Gross, an investigating magistrate and professor of
criminology at the University of Prague. He described the need for a scientifically trained investigator
who could undertake certain technical aspects of an investigation and could also serve as liaison
between scientific specialists who might assist in the investigation of criminal activity. This concept
was popular in Europe, where a number of forensic science institutes were developed to apply the
tools and techniques of the natural sciences to the investigation of crime and, generally, in official
governmental inquiries.
In the United States and the United Kingdom, with legal systems fundamentally different than those
of Europe, the criminalistics profession has developed in a different fashion. Criminalistics
laboratories were established in a few police departments in the early decades of the twentieth
century (in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York) and in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In
the 1970s an infusion of money from the federal government resulted in the formation of numerous
laboratories associated with state and local law enforcement agencies.
The majority of criminalists work in laboratories associated with governmental agencies charged with
enforcing local, state, or federal laws or regulations. However, a number of criminalists engage in
private practice or are employed by academic institutions.
Education
Criminalists require a broad education in the natural sciences, including inorganic, organic, and
analytical chemistry; physics; mathematics and statistics; and biology and biochemistry. In addition,
curricula in criminalistics or forensic science leading to bachelor's or master's degrees include
courses dealing with specific types of commonly encountered evidence materials (such as dried
biological fluid stains, impression evidence, or trace evidence), with specific analytical procedures
(such as microscopy or instrumental analysis), and with applicable legal issues.
As a consequence of the small number of graduates with degrees in criminalistics or forensic
science, many criminalists have undergraduate or graduate degrees in scientific disciplines such as
chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, or biology, and have chosen a career in criminalistics after
completing their education. A wide variety of in-service training is available, including training
through the FBI, the California Department of Justice (through the California Criminalistics Institute),
and various professional associations.
Specialists
It is not possible for a single person to become proficient in the examination and analysis of all types
of physical evidence. Increasingly, criminalists and other workers in forensic science laboratories are
specializing in the examination of one or a few types of physical evidence.
Forensic biologists
Forensic biology is the analysis of the biological or genetic properties of evidence. Criminalists who
specialize in forensic biology are involved in the identification of biological evidence and attempts to
determine its source. Traditional methods for the analysis of blood-group antigens and genetically
variant proteins present in blood, semen, and other biological materials have given way to the
analysis of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) that can be recovered from such materials (Fig. 1). The
ability to identify the individual from whom a blood or semen sample has come has revolutionized
the science of criminalistics.See also: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA); Forensic medicine
SAVE
Fig. 1 Capillary electropherogram of DNA isolated from biological evidence. DNA, isolated from biological
material such as blood, semen, hair, or tissue, can be compared with DNA obtained from suspects or victims
of crimes. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used to increase minute amounts of DNA isolated from
evidentiary specimens. Analysis by capillary electrophoresis, or other techniques, allows the criminalist to
determine, with a very high degree of certainty, that the evidentiary sample is or is not from a particular
individual. (Forensic Science Associates)
Reference samples are routinely obtained from individuals who are incarcerated, arrested, or
otherwise come into contact with law enforcement. The collection of a reference DNA sample from
inside of the cheek (generally using a swab called a buccal swab), is regulated by local, state, and
national laws. Recent improvements in analytical techniques allow a genetic profile, often called a
DNA type, to be developed from the biological material collected from items that may simply have
been touched by an individual, such as a firearm used in a shooting, a soft drink can left at the scene
of a burglary, or a finger smudge on the rear-view mirror of a stolen car. When a genetic profile is
obtained from some object at a crime scene, the profile can be compared with profiles on file and a
person may be identified.
Trace evidence analysts
These specialists analyze material that is transferred between two objects that come into contact
(Fig. 2). The Locard exchange principle, credited to the French criminalist Edmond Locard, states
that whenever two objects come into contact, portions (or traces) of one object will be transferred to
the other. Finding these traces, identifying what they are, and determining their origin through the
process of individualization (determination of the parameters of a sample that will allow it to be
distinguished from other or all similar items) is the job of the trace-evidence analyst. This analysis is
based on the chemical or physical properties of the material. Use of the optical microscope and the
electron microscope and highly sensitive methods of chemical analysis (such as Fourier-transform
infrared spectroscopy, energy-dispersive x-ray analysis, mass spectroscopy, and neutron-activation
analysis) are typically used by trace-evidence specialists. See also:Mass spectroscope; Scanning
electron microscope; Spectroscopy; X-Ray fluorescence analysis
SAVE
Fig. 2 Fiber photomicrographs. Trace evidence such as fibers, hairs, soil, glass, paint, or botanical material
may be transferred between two objects which come into contact. A variety of analytical techniques,
including polarized light microscopy, fluorescence microscopy, infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron
microscopy, energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy, and microspectrophotometry are used for the analysis of
such materials. The finding of material from one object on another object provides evidence that the two
objects were in contact. (Forensic Science Associates)
Firearms and toolmark examiners
These specialists examine firearms, ammunition components, and tools and marks left by them. The
underlying principle is that when a tool acts on some object it will leave a mark that is unique, due to
the configuration of the cutting edge. The uniqueness of each tool is a result of manufacturing
processes and postmanufacturing wear and damage. The tool may be a screwdriver that was used
to pry open a door or window, or a gun barrel that produced distinctive markings on a fired bullet.
The firearms and toolmark specialist will compare the marks on a recovered bullet or a toolmark on a
window with guns or tools recovered during the investigation. It is often possible to conclude that a
recovered bullet was fired from a particular firearm or that a mark on a window was made by a
particular screwdriver.
Other evidence specialists
At a crime scene, physical evidence is routinely encountered (for example, shoe or tire impressions,
gunpowder residues on the body or clothing of victims or perpetrators in shootings, fragments of
bombs or destructive devices recovered from scenes of sabotage, or pieces of botanical material).
There are people who specialize in some of these areas, but often a criminalist is called on to
develop a method for examination of unique evidence, or to consult with a scientist from an industrial
or academic laboratory with expertise in an unusual field (such as forensic anthropology). See
also: Forensic anthropology
Criminalists are often involved in the analysis of suspected illegal drugs and narcotics, the
examination of questioned documents, or fingerprint identification. Although they are familiar with the
techniques used for the examination of these types of evidence, the examinations are usually
performed by specialists. See also: Fingerprint; Forensic chemistry; Forensic toxicology
Analytical techniques
A wide variety of techniques is used by criminalists for the location and collection of evidence at
crime scenes as well as for the examination and analysis of that evidence in the laboratory.
Crime-scene techniques may involve the use of lasers or other light sources to locate biological
stains or minute fibers or paint particles, chemical tests for lead around suspected bullet holes,
electrostatic devices to recover a dusty shoe sole impression from a floor, or special reagents for the
development of latent fingerprints.
Many techniques used in the forensic laboratory are the same ones that are used by analytical
chemists, molecular biologists, materials scientists, and so on. Often these techniques are adapted
to the special requirements of the forensic science laboratory. Infrared spectroscopy, mass
spectrometry, gas chromatography, optical and electron microscopy, and a host of other standard
analytical chemistry techniques find common use by criminalists. See also: Gas chromatography
Routine techniques and procedures have been developed by forensic scientists that have little or no
application outside the forensic laboratory. Examples are the determination of genetic markers in
minute fragments of dried biological material, the determination of the refractive index of microscopic
glass fragments, the microscopic comparison of individual human hairs, and the microscopic
comparison of markings on the surface of bullets.
Controversy
In 2009, after a year-long investigation, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that
questioned some of the techniques used by criminalists in the examination of physical evidence. The
report specifically mentioned fingerprint examination, firearms comparison, and several other areas
of forensic science as lacking a strong scientific foundation. The report alleged that the techniques
used to prove that a bullet was fired by a specific gun or that a sample of handwriting was produced
by a specific individual lacked an adequate scientific basis. Recommendations in the report included
improved education and training for criminalists, research in areas where a sound scientific basis
does not exist for opinions that are typically expressed, improved training of judges who control the
use of scientific evidence in their courts, and legislative action, when necessary.
Peter D. Barnett
Bibliography
● P. R. DeForest et al., Forensic Science: An Introduction to Criminalistics, McGraw-Hill, 1983
● A. Moenssens et al., Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases, 4th ed., Foundation Press, New
York, 1995
● R. Saferstein, Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, 10th ed., Prentice Hall, 2010
● R. Saferstein, Forensic Science Handbook, vols. 1–3, Prentice Hall, 1982
● H. Tuthill, Individualization: Principles and Procedures in Criminalistics, Mass Market paper 1994
● John Vanderkolk, Forensic Comparative Science: Qualitative Quantitative Source Determination of
Unique Impressions, Images, and Objects, Elsevier-Academic Press, New York, 2009
● J. Zonderman, Beyond the Crime Lab: The New Science of Investigation, Wiley, New York, 1998
Additional Readings
● S. E. Chen and R. Janardhanam, Forensic engineering education reform, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Forensic Eng., 166(1):9–16, 2013 DOI: 10.1680/feng.11.00034
● B. A. J. Fisher, W. J. Tilstone, and C. Woytowicz, Introduction to Criminalistics, Academic Press,
Burlington, MA, 2009
● B. Found and G. Edmond, Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence:
Recommendations for forensic specialists, Aust. J. Forensic Sci., 44(2):193–196, 2012
DOI:10.1080/00450618.2011.644260
● J. E. Girard, Criminalistics: Forensic Science, Crime and Terrorism, 2d ed., Jones & Bartlett
Learning, Sudbury, MA, 2011
● Journal of Forensic Sciences, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, bimonthly
● W. Petherick, B. E. Turvey, and C. E. Ferguson (eds.), Forensic Criminology, Academic Press,
Burlington, MA, 2010
● Science & Justice, Forensic Science Society of Great Britain, quarterly
