Prosecutorial strategies for managing expert scientific evidence

This study explores the role of prosecutors in managing scientific evidence and expert witness testimony during the pretrial stages of a criminal case. Prosecutors are in charge of making important decisions at every step of a criminal case, and scientific evidence and expert witness testimony affect these decisions. The purpose of the research is to explore the ways in which prosecutors are influenced by scientific evidence, and how prosecutors engage in interactions with expert witnesses whose role it is to present the scientific testimony to the court. The focus of the research is on the backstage processes of assistant prosecutors; how they prepare and address scientific evidence during the early stages of a criminal case and how this affects strategies and decision-making.;An exploratory, grounded theory methodology was used to conduct 19 semi-structured interviews with former and current assistant prosecutors in Michigan. Several key themes emerged from the data. First, resources and budget constraints influenced prosecutorial decision-making during the pretrial stages of a case. This generally involved the prosecutors' ability to charge a suspect, enter into plea negotiations with the defense, or call experts. Second, prosecutors communicated early with defense attorneys about all evidence, but judges played a less significant role in the pretrial process of discussions about scientific evidence. Communication with defense attorneys involved plea negotiations for some prosecutors, but emphasized the discovery process in all cases.;Third, the pretrial preparation of scientific evidence involved self-preparation by prosecutors, and reciprocal education between the expert and the prosecutors. This preparation process was similar for many prosecutors, but was influenced by whether the expert was routine or non-routine. Finally, the shift in access to technology as well as the media about criminal investigations has impacted prosecutors in how they manage juror expectations and defense strategies in order to demonstrate why scientific evidence may not be found at the crime scene.