Admin's Evidence For The Shoeprint Group

SECTION 1 SHOEPRINT GROUP The admin’s evidence for the shoeprint group was determined to be admissible. There were some minor mistakes within the documents, such as the admin log, but the witness admitted to the mistakes made and stated what she would have done. She was also knowledgeable and truthful in her testimony. The documentation’s evidence for the shoeprint group was determined to be admissible. The witness was able to accurately describe the methodology used. There was nothing majorly wrong with the photos or photo log. The rough and final sketches were clean and descriptive with accurate measurements taken by triangulation. The evidence handler’s evidence for the shoeprint group was determined to be admissible. The witness was knowledgeable

Also, the narrative description was filled out incorrectly. However, the witness did admit to the mistakes, was truthful, remained professional while on the stand, and stated what she should have done. The documentation’s evidence for the fiber group was determined to be admissible. The witness was knowledgeable about the process of taking photos, measuring, and sketching a crime scene. The only major error in the photograph was the lack of a closeup with a scale, but she was truthful and admitted her mistakes. There was nothing majorly wrong with the photos or photo log. The rough and final sketches were clean and completed with all of the correct information and accurate measurements. The evidence handler’s evidence for the fiber group was determined to be inadmissible. The witness was knowledgeable on the examination of fibers; however, she has testified on information that was not included in her report; for example, she said the fabric scrap had fractured into Scooter Davis’s hoodie, but that was not included in the report. She concluded that the fiber at the scene and the fibers from Scooter’s hoodie had similar

The witness was able to accurately describe some of the methodology used, but there was some information she was truthful about not knowing despite being an expert in documentation. There were photos included that were not noted in the log. The rough step was correctly drawn in aerial view, while the final sketch was drawn in a different perspective. The measurements taken at the scene were also inaccurate as there was a gap in the triangulation. However, the witness was truthful and admitted to her mistake. The evidence handler’s evidence for the shell casing group was determined to be admissible. The witness was knowledgeable on the examination of shell casings and remained truthful in her answers. She did not try to testify on information she was unsure about. She had concluded that the shell casings from the scene had similar characteristics to a shell casing shot from the gun found on Scooter Davis. This meant that Scooter Davis could not be excluded from being the perpetrator. POWDER RESIDUE GROUP The admin’s evidence for the powder residue group was determined to be admissible. The witness accurately described the documents and their purposes while also having filled them out correctly. She answered all the questions honestly and did not testify on information she did not know. Any minor mistakes that did occur, such as spelling, were addressed and accounted for. There was a