In respect to the chain of custody, admissibility of evidence is the aspect of having evidence in a given case. Admissibility evidence is the evidence required to support a case in a court of law. There are certain standards that should be meeting in order for an evidence to be admissible evidence. Judges rely on the evidence given by two sides of the case thus when providing evidence, one side always provides facts and information that oppose the other side. With chain of custody, admissible evidence calls for critical reasoning in order to develop some evidence that satisfies judges and giving information that is relevant to the court. According to the court of law, admissible evidence is that which has some relevant information in relation to the act, (Keane, 2008).
According to chain of custody, forensics investigators are at times placed on the wrong side of the case. A burden might develop to an investigator due to the level of fact information or evidence that has been placed. On the other hand, forensic investigators are not liable with materials they provide to the court simply because the evidence might be irrelevant to the case thus been set free, (Keane, 2008).
From the first beginning of O.J Simpson case, there were contradicting issues relating to the collected information. Simpson’s ex-wife was killed along with a friend in the house of Simpson. Simpson was caught in order to assist in doing the investigation on who might have killed the two. As there was no enough evidence, he was found guilty of the murder and was jailed. On further investigation, he was found innocent and was released after 134 days. Admissible evidence was applied in this court case and the man was found innocent, (Keane, 2008).
Reference:
Keane, A. (2008). The Modern Law of Evidence: Oxford University Press
