It is being reported by the LA Times that two jurors in the recent trial of Michael Jackson are now stating that they believe Jackson is guilty despite the fact that he has been acquitted.
What sorts of forensic evidence that exists in this case may have been ambigous?
What sorts of forensic evidence in this case may be conclusive?
Do you have any ideas about how jurors could be convinced of one’s innocence during a trial and then reverse their conclusions?
If you were assisting the District Attorney in prosecuting this case, what sorts of evidence would you have sought to collect and add to the proceedings?
If you were assisting the Defense, what sorts of evidence would you have sought to collect?
Would you use a different approach depending on which side you were working with? describe the differences.
Do these types of questions interest and intrigue you? Perhaps you are ready to add a forensic nursing certification to your skills set. Online Forensic Nursing Certification Courses are the answer.
Forensic Nursing Chronicles 