The three major types of evidences mainly ballistics, blood and body fluids, and fingerprints are very important in any case to ensure that the case before the court have all the necessary elements of the cases of the various cases involved. Ballistics evidence is that evidence obtained from a crime scene where fire arms were used. Ballistic evidence enables the court to get the relevant information pertaining to the type of the firearms used, the types of the bullets the distance at which the bullets were short and the time. Ballistic evidences are collected by putting on gloves, recording the serial number of the fire arm, ensuring that they are unloaded before taken to the laboratory by checking the cartridges and placing them in a cardboard made of wood where the arms should be properly packed to avoid shifting. The bullets from the crime scene should also place in separate containers such as envelopes or pill boxes where they are taken to the laboratory. Body fluids and blood are important identifying individuals involved in a crime by relying on the DNA tests. These evidences can be collected by putting on protective gloves and applying the following methods; scrapping which is done using a scalpel or a sharp razor, tape lifting method which can applied in cases where the evidence are in a dried state, blood and body fluids can also be collected by wet absorption method. After collection the samples are taken to the laboratory for testing. Finger prints are important evidences that can be used to identify the individuals involved in a crime. Finger prints are collected through screening of immovable objects in the crime scene. Tools such as black powder or magnetic powder are used to during the screening process; the screened samples are captured by a camera and taken to the laboratory for testing. Admissibility of the evidences depends on the results from the laboratory which are based on scientific tests done in the laboratory (Cohen, 2010).
The tests used by courts to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony are Frye and Daubert method. The Frye method relies on scientific processes and can only be relied on after the element of a unanimous acceptability has been reached. The Daubert method on the other hand relies on the theory supposed by an expert has been tested or proved in other cases or research of similar nature. The admissibility of witnesses under this category also calls for information from pearly reviewed articles in the field. Just like the Frye theorem, Daubert elements also rely on the aspect of uninamous acceptance of the facts that underlie the case. However, it is cognizance to note that the disparity between Frye and Daubert factors is the margin of error in each case; the former has low chances of error as compared to the latter. It is in the light of the above facts that Frye is still widely used in most courts as the standard method for determining admissibility of expert witnesses (Riccardi, 2010).
The Abuse of Discretion designates the element of power that is vested in the courts to act or give rulings that solely determined by the decisions of the judges. It denotes an act whereby a judge may surpass the ordinary confines of reason to make a ruling.
Cohen, R. (2010).”Superior Court Affirms Non Pros for Failure to Subpoena Own Witness; Trial Court Did not Abuse Discretion in Its Application of Civil Procedure Rule 216.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (October 9).
Riccardi, A. (2010).”Polygraph Evidence OK to Prove Probable Cause, Circuit Judges Say; No Abuse of Discretion in Relying on ‘Lie Detector’ for Limited Purpose.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 29).