1)They are very reliable because they are almost always accurate.All science in the courtroom has to be verified in order to be used in the court to prove that their tests are accurate and reliable and can be used as an evidence in court. Reliability is measured by how much your machines have been validated ,if a forensic scientist in a court say the evidence is true but did not have a proper reliability , than people can question how true this test can actually be. Hard science is consisted of chemistry,biology and physics are the most reliable evidence.
2)The reliability of the analytical science in the courtroom is growing. This is because of the fact that analytical science involves comparison between the characteristics and features of the suspected specimens with those obtained from the criminals or victims. The analytical science plays an important role in proving a fact that a crime has been committed, the place of crime and establishing the identity of the culprit.
HOPE THIS HELPS..
A Explanation: Trust Me Bro
Answer:
D
Explanation:
If this answer helped you then please consider making this brainliest and thank this response :)
This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
