BALANCING SCIENCE AND TESTIMONY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND WITNESS ACCOUNTS IN CRIMINAL ADJUDICATION

Abstract

This paper examines how the process of judicial systems integrating forensic evidence into a traditional witness account in criminal cases can be performed by focusing on comparative judicial measures, the weight of evidence, and the resulting impacts on justice and trustworthiness. Using case law, judicial decisions, and the trial-testimonies of a diverse variety of jurisdictions, the analysis evaluates the guidelines used by the courts to determine the probative value of forensic science evidence (including DNA and ballistics, and even fingerprint evidence) side by side with testimonial ones, considering the aspects of credibility, consistency, and possible bias. The study also asks the questions of the tensions that arise when science is at odds or disputes the accounts by witnesses, and its nature of how the judges then settle such disputes upon their decisions. Using criteria like admissibility, credibility of an expert witness, cross-examination, and cross-examination, the paper describes current areas of law and the procedural protections that govern the incorporation of the different types of evidence. Finally, the paper suggests the recommendations intended to increase the level of integrity of adjudication systems, moralize fewer flawed convictions, and contribute to better citizen trust in criminal justice systems. The results demonstrate that even though it is important to state that forensic evidence has become more influential, the role of traditional testimony cannot be ignored, especially in cases where the scientific certitude is only debatable or doubtful.