Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

By Deleo, Michael | Law & Order, November 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

Deleo, Michael, Law & Order

Bloodstain pattern analysis is a helpful tool in the reconstruction of a crime scene. Bloodstain analysis gives the investigator the ability to de ants that could have occurred du ahe course of the bloodshed. Once es analysis is complete, these facts ar considered in light of all other evidence as a means of corroborating or refuting statements, confessions or investigative theories.

The information that can be discovered through careful bloodstain pattern analysis includes: the angle of the impact; the nature of the force involved in the bloodshed and the direction from which that force was applied; the nature of Jan object used in applying the force; the approximate number of blows struck during the incident and the relative position in the scene of the suspect, victim or other related objects during tIe incident.

Admissibility of Scientific Evidence

The trial judge who uses one of two tests decides the issue of admissibility of an expert's opinion testimony. The older of the tests is the general acceptance test that is based on Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013 (D.CC.Cir. 1923)).

"While courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."

This language controlled the admissibility of scientific evidence for years; however, this test was heavily criticized. One of the arias that induced the most criticism was trying to determine which scientific field the particular technique belonged in. For example, bloodstain pattern analysis could belong in the field of crime scene investigation or reconstruction, yet it is based on the fields of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.

Courts applying the general acceptance test have usually held that bloo stain pattern analysis is sufficiently established to be admissible. For xample, in People v. Knox (459 N.E.2d 1077(1984)) the court held that the prosecutor could present expert testimony regarding bloodstain pattern analysis, stating that the testimony was based on a well-recognized principle and that general acceptance was established.

Often when this type of testimony is not considered to be sufficiently established it is because the proper foundation was not laid establishing the technique as a well-recognized scientific principle. In People v. Owens (508 N.E.2d 1088 (Ill.App.Ct. 1987)) the prosecutor failed to show that bloodstain pattern analysis had gained general acceptance and did not produce evidence to demonstrate the reliability of the evidence.

In 1975 the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted, and 4 Rule 702 addressed scientific testimony. Rule 702 provides,

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of opinion or otherwise." (Fed. R. Evid. 702).

Under this rule, scientific evidence needs to be helpful, relevant and reliable. Bloodstain pattern analysis evidence was admitted pursuant to this new test of admissibility. In United States v. Mustafa (22 M.J. 165 (C.M.A. 1986)), expert testimony was permitted to enhance the government's theory of how the crime occurred. The court found that the bloodstain pattern analysis could assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence to determine a fact in issue; therefore, the agent could testify as an expert. The court even commented that Rule 702 was broader then the Frye test.

The Federal Rule of Evidence 702 seemed less stringent then the Frye test since the testimony only had to assist the trier of fact, but did not address the reliability of the actual scientific principle. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Daubert v.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?