Recent technical advances have made it possible to locate suspects in crowds and profile possible criminals based on behavioral patterns. For example, Bradley explains that face-recognition devices were tested at the Super Bowl and were so powerful they could read lines from the coaches’ playbooks. Also disconcerting to Bradley, through computer programming consumers’ shopping patterns and travel activities can be used to judge their potential for terrorist activity. Even “fender benders” are now frequently recorded with surveillance equipment planted throughout major cities. The concerns for privacy are enhanced by a judicial system incapable of keeping up with the technology.
Bradley examines the issues that trial and appellate judges confront when addressing the scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements that appear with increasing frequency in criminal proceedings. The book assesses how judges treat the admissibility of both the results and the procedures of different forensic techniques in criminal trials. At issue is the level of scientific knowledge necessary to understand the techniques and make decisions based on their results. Bradley reminds readers that judges are legal experts, not scientists, and warns that “they will be increasingly expected to be gatekeepers for criminal courtrooms and screen out nonscientific material while admitting scientific evidence” (169).
These judges then have to make decisions that impact the way this evidence is framed for jurors. Bradley expresses concern about how limited and uncritical experience with scientific information—especially through cases like the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson trials being aired on CourtTV and “forensic entertainment” in television shows like "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" and literary mysteries like Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code—could be affecting the ability of jurors to evaluate scientific evidence. Bradley stresses that jurors tend to be extremely impressed by test results that they may not fully understand. "Just because we use the adjective 'scientific,' people tend to take it a lot more seriously," Bradley says. This could have serious consequences for how cases are judged, who gets to go free, and who is executed.
Bradley is Associate Professor of Politics and Government where he teaches courses focused on Constitutional law, American government, and citizen participation. This semester, he is teaching Topics in Law: Forensic Science Methods in the Criminal Courts where he will examine much of what is put forth in his text with his students. In addition to teaching, Bradley serves as the University’s Pre-Law Advisor.
Some information and quotes for this story were taken from the Pantagraph.