Term Paper on "Pennell v. State of Delaware"

Term Paper 5 pages (1776 words) Sources: 4 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Pennell v. State of Delaware, the court addressed issues surrounding an expert's testimony about serial killers. This testimony was crucial because the defendant was indicted and tried for the murders of three prostitutes, and convicted of murdering two of those victims. The defendant attempted to suggest that the admission of the expert's testimony violated Frye v. United States. However, in Bass v. State, the Court previously determined that the Frye test was inapplicable when an expert's opinion was based solely on his own knowledge and experience, in contrast to scientific information. Therefore, the Court determined that Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 governed the admissibility of the expert's opinion. The expert's experience was outside of the realm of average knowledge and could have assisted the jury's understanding of signature crimes and crime analysis. In Pennell's case, such information was considered helpful to the jury because the jury had to determine whether the three charged murders were committed by the same person.

The Court supported its decision to admit expert testimony regarding serial murders because the injuries suffered by two of the victims were extremely similar. In addition, the victims had identical causes of death. Furthermore, there were additional victims who exhibited similar injuries, but the defendant was not charged with those crimes. Therefore, the signature aspects of those crimes were relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence. In addition, the trial court limited the admissibility of the expert's testimony. While the trial court permitted the expert's testimony regarding the signature aspects of the crime, it refused to permit the expert to testify regarding his profile. The Court determined that, "Profile" evidence is that which attempts to link the general characteristics of serial murderers to specific characteristics of the defendant. Such evidence is of little probative value and extremely prejudicial to the defendant since he is, in a sense, being accused by a witness who was not present at any of the crimes." (Pennell v. State of Delaware, 1991).

Because of their frequent use in television, books, and movies, the general public may believe that criminal profilers are involved in all aspects of crime detection and prosecution. This perception is inaccurate, but criminal profiling does play an important role in the investigation of serial criminals. While the Pennell court did not allow the expert to testify regarding the criminal profile used to narrow down the range of suspects, it did permit the expert to testify regarding those elements of the crime that helped the expert develop his signature. The elements that help an expert develop a profile are elements of a crime that appear somewhat unique and allow the crime to stand out from similar crimes. These distinctive elements are referred to as a criminal signature. The Pennell court made the correct decision to allow the expert to testify regarding the signature elements of the murders, because these elements were crucial in linking the defendant to two of the murders. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant was found not guilty of one of the murders demonstrates that juries use signature elements as tools for decision making, but do substitute the presence of certain criminal signatures for a lack of reasonable doubt.

The use of signature elements is important in crime detection. According to Special Agent John Douglas, the expert who testified in Pennell's criminal trial, the use of signature elements plays an important role in helping detectives solve crimes. (Douglas & Munn, 1992). He believes that "Most crime scenes tell a story. And like most stories, crime scenes have characters, a plot, a beginning, a middle, and hopefully, a conclusion." (Douglas & Munn, 1992). Furthermore, because an individual's core behavioral characteristics do not change, regardless of whether that individual is engaged in legal or illegal activity, Douglas and Munn believe that "learning to recognize crime scene manifestations of behavioral patterns enables investigators to discover much about the offender. It also provides a means by which investigators can distinguish between different offenders committing the same types of offense." (1992).

Additionally, Douglass and Munn distinguish between modus operandi, personation or signature, and staging. Modus operandi refers to an "offender's actions while committing the crime." (Douglass & Munn, 1992). Furthermore, the modus operandi "is a learned behavior that is dynamic and malleable. Developed over time, the M.O. continuously evolves as offenders gain experience and confidence." (Douglass & Munn, 1992). Repeat violent offenders often leave signatures, which refers to criminal conduct that is "a unique and integral part of the offender's behavior and goes beyond the actions needed to commit the crime." (Douglass & Munn, 1992).

Staging may be committed by the criminal or a third party and "occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police." (Douglass & Munn, 1992). While these distinctions are important for psychologists, one can see how the Pennell decision would allow an expert to testify about any of these three possible manifestations of offender behavior, even though the differences between the manifestations would make signature testimony more relevant than related testimony.

It is the signature that is most relevant with violent, repetitive offenders:

Fantasies of offenders often give birth to violent crime. As offenders brood and daydream, they develop a need to express these violent fantasies. When they are finally acted out, some aspect of each crime demonstrates a unique, personal expression or ritual based on these fantasies. However, committing the crime does not satisfy the needs of offenders, and this insufficiency compels them to go beyond the scope of the offense and perform a ritual. When offenders display rituals at the crime scene, they have left their individualized "calling card." (Douglass & Munn, 1992).

Clearly, a criminal's signature can serve several important roles in crime detection. It can link crimes that might otherwise appear unrelated; give the investigators insight into a criminal's behaviour, and also help narrow down the field of potential victims. However, some might argue that testimony regarding signature should not be permitted at trial.

There are several cogent arguments against permitting signature testimony at trial. One argument suggests that signatures are merely circumstantial evidence, and should not be admitted because it would unduly prejudice the jury. However, this argument ignores the fact that circumstantial evidence is admissible. In fact, convictions can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, as long as the evidence is sufficient to remove reasonable doubt regarding a defendant's guilt. In fact, the results in Pennell's trial demonstrate that juries are not willing to base a conviction solely upon a signature: although Pennell was charged with three murders, the jury returned convictions for only two of those crimes, because there was not sufficient physical evidence to link Pennell to the other murder.

Another argument against allowing signature testimony at trial is that such testimony necessarily introduces evidence of other crimes into a defendant's trial; investigators are unable to establish a signature from a single crime scene. Evidence of other crimes is governed by Del. R. Evid. 404(b), which generally prohibits the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes. However, Rule 404(b) does not prohibit the admission of evidence for other charged crimes or for crimes for which the defendant has previously been convicted. (Del. R. Evid. 404(b)).

In fact, the Pennell case did very little to change the interrelationship between psychology and the law. Under Del. R. Evid. 702, expert testimony is admissible if the witness has specialized "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" which can assist the trier of fact's understanding of the evidence. (Del. R. Evid. 702). Therefore, as long as a witness qualifies as an expert, his testimony will generally be admissible. However, the true issue in Pennell, which was not addressed in the final decision, was whether the expert's testimony could include elements of a criminal's signature, which the expert relied upon to help form his opinions regarding the defendant's guilt. However, the Court correctly determined that "whether all three murders were committed by the same person was clearly a 'fact in issue' for purposes of Rule 702." (Pennell v. State of Delaware, 1991). Furthermore, detailed descriptions of what occurred at the crime scenes for each of the charged crimes would have been admissible during the trial anyway. Having the expert testify as to why he found certain of these elements to be significant in linking the crimes to the same perpetrator did not introduce any factual testimony that would have been otherwise inadmissible.

Finally, those who argue against the admission of signature testimony ignore the fact that there is substantial evidence supporting the use of criminal signatures when determining whether crimes are connected. In addition, juries are not required to believe an expert, and are not encouraged to give more weight to expert testimony than to non-expert testimony. While juries are free to ignore an expert's testimony, they should be given the opportunity to understand why certain crime-solving techniques have been employed. According to the expert that testified at Pennell's trial, signatures are significant because "the signature aspect remains a constant and enduring… READ MORE

How to Reference "Pennell v. State of Delaware" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Motor Vehicle Association of the U.S. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Research Proposal

Motor Vehicle Association v State Farm

In modern, contemporary law, several agencies of the United States government have acted in a policing manner to ensure the safety of consumer items,… read more

Research Proposal 6 pages (1688 words) Sources: 1+ Style: MLA Topic: Transportation / Mass Transit

---

State Is the Single Most Important Actor in Achieving Sustainable Development Affirmative Research Paper

Sustainable Development Debate

The state is the condition of a system entity or a governance entity like a country. This is an organized political community that lives under a government.… read more

Research Paper 7 pages (2494 words) Sources: 10 Style: Harvard Topic: Environment / Conservation / Ecology

---

United States Steel Corporation Research Paper

United States Steel Corp v. Commissioner

In United States Steel Corporation v. Commissioner, the court was called upon to determine that appropriate way of allocating additional income to a corporation… read more

Research Paper 6 pages (2304 words) Sources: 6 Topic: Business / Corporations / E-commerce

---

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, 248 Term Paper

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)

FACTS:

The injured passenger was standing on a platform waiting for the train to stop.

Another passenger… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (652 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Terry v. Ohio Term Paper

Terry v. Ohio

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (758 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>