Cmrj341 | Criminal homework help
WRITE 8-10 PAGES
DO NOT WRITE 8-10 PAGES AS STATED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THIS COURSE . 1,200 WORDS MINIMUM NOT INCLUDING THE TITLE PAGE, RESOURCE PAGE, AND ANY ABSTRACT IF USED IS REQUIRED. PLEASE DO YOUR BEST NOT TO GO OVER 1,500 WORDS. BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE FULL URLs FOR YOUR SOURCES. LATE PAPERS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS CLASS ENDS AT 1155PM ON SUNDAY OF WEEK 8. PLEASE FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONTENT. GUIDELINES/TIPS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE ALSO POSTED IN THE WEEK 7 & 8 FORUMS. THANK YOU.
Crime is at an all-time high in the City of Crimetown, USA. City Officials are determined to reduce crime and have already allocated money for more police officers. They have additional funds and want to allocate a portion to the crime laboratory of Crimetown Police Department. You and your fellow co-workers at the crime laboratory have been asked to prepare a presentation to the City Officials. The City is considering allocating additional funds to one forensic unit within the crime laboratory this year and they wish to gain a better understanding of the functions of the unit and why this unit would be the most helpful in solving crime.
Select one (1) specialized unit within a contemporary crime lab and prepare an 1,200 word paper (content) addressing the functions of the unit, the importance of the particular forensic examinations within the unit, and how the unit will help investigators solve crime. I recommend using real life case examples and statistics to bolster your argument.
Your paper should be at least 1,200 words in length (not including your title and reference pages), written in APA 6th edition format (title page, running head, abstract and separate reference page) and include at least 6 references, of which 3 must be peer reviewed journal articles from the APUS library (Do not forget your full URL). use proper spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. The in-text citations and references will be in APA Format.
Week 7 OER
Jansen, W., Ayers, R., & Brothers, S. (2014). Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics. NIST Special Publication, 800-101. Retrieved from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-101r1.pdf
National Forensic Science Technology Center (2013). A Simplified Guide to Forensic Document Examination. Retrieved from http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/docs/QuestionedDocuments.pdf
Week 8 OER
Faigman, D. L., Slobogin, C., & Monahan, J. (2016). Gatekeeping science: Using the structure of scientific research to distinguish between admissibility and weight in expert testimony. Northwestern University Law Review, 110(4), 859-904. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1809934424/fulltextPDF/D7C5516A2DDF45F3PQ/1?accountid=8289
Kuchler, D. D. (2010). An In-Depth Look at Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses. FDCC Quarterly, 60(2), 151.
Sapir, G. I. (2007). Qualifying the expert witness: A practical voir dire. Forensic Magazine, 30-38.
Zimmerman, R. L. (2011). 10 best of good laboratory practices for forensic facilities: A key to satisfying Daubert’s gatekeeper and rule 702. Forensic Science Policy & Management, 2(4), 187-197. doi: 10.1080/19409044.2012.706688
Total Pages: 86
Frye v. United States, 293 Fed. 1013 (1923). Retrieved from https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/faculty/little/topic8.pdf
Watkins, H. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: General acceptance rejected. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 10(1), 259-265. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=chtlj