Gunshot Detection Systems: Considerations for Prosecutors

Authors: PCE, National Policing Institute

This article provides a basic understanding of gunshot detection system technology, its investigative and evidentiary value, and issues prosecutors may encounter when trying to admit gunshot detection system evidence at trial.

Sep 27, 2022 – Sep 29, 2022

Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Details: For prosecutors only. View booklet

Authors: PCE, NRTAC

As the demand for forensic evidence has exploded, so has the pressure on crime laboratories to keep pace with an ever-growing workload. This paper, developed by PCE’s Executive Director Kristine Hamann and St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office Chief of Trials Rachel Smith, addresses the critical question of how best to maximize the resources of a public forensic laboratory. This question is explored in three different parts, each with an emphasis on the prosecutor’s perspective:

Author(s): Kristine Hamann, PCE and John Delaney

Violent crime prosecutors do difficult and important work. In October 2017, fifteen seasoned violent-crime prosecutors spent a day and a half sharing their ideas about how to improve the investigation of violent crimes at a meeting sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice. Though the group had much in common, it was quickly apparent that there are a variety of approaches to their work.

On September 19, 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a 174-page report titled “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods”. Read

The PCAST Report does not bind any prosecutors or any courts, but it contains arguments that defense attorneys will use to exclude certain forensic evidence.  These motions have already begun.

January 28, 2016 — Volume 6

Secure In Our Convictions:
Using New Evidence To Strengthen Prosecution 
Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence, January 2016. Click here

Benefits and Challenges of New Evidence: With the focus on erroneous convictions of the past, there has been little discussion of the improvements in science and technology that are enabling police and prosecutors to get their cases right in the first instance. Time and again this new evidence is being used in jurisdictions of all sizes to verify the guilt of a suspect or to exonerate an innocent suspect. However, with these benefits come serious challenges. Prosecutors must find the manpower, technical knowledge, and funds to keep pace with the changing technologies and the deluge of digital evidence. Pre-existing budget cuts and diminishing labor pools often compound these hurdles.