Casey Anthony Case
Dixit and Gothwal (2015) define criminal law as a rule that control the social conduct and prohibits the acts that are harmful to the people and as such, threatening the safety and the welfare of societal members. Morse (2015) contends that criminal laws define the punishment levelled on the people who break the prescribed societal conduct while Holland (2015) asserts that criminal laws refer to the state laws, which make certain actions illegal and punishable by fines or imprisonment. Accordingly, the case of Casey Anthony falls under the criminal and as such, the forensic evidence gathered from the trunk of her car makes her criminally reliable, as the said evidence is admissible in the court of law.
The forensic experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) examined a band of hair recovered from her vehicle, which exposed evidence of apparent decomposition. Forensic analysis of the recovered band of hair showed consistence with the band of hair of the deceased. The FBI experts who conducted forensic analysis on the band of hair told the court that the sample had many consistencies in relation to the post-mortem banding. Moreover, microscopic hair examination specialist told the jurors that the root portion of the air was dark and, therefore, consistent with the evidence presented by the FBI. The analyzed evidence showed that the hair was evicted forcibly from the deceased.
Further, an investigator of the crime scene testified that that there was an odor smell emanating from Casey Anthony’s car, which indicted that there was decomposition in the car. All this evidence prompted the court to judge Casey Anthony with first-degree murder when the remains of the deceased were found near the home of the defendant’s parents. However, the defense team for Casey Anthony asserted that the deceased accidentally drowned in the swimming pool within the homestead.
The misleading count of events narrated by Casey Anthony complicates the legal proceedings of the trial to an extent that the case has attracted massive publicity. Accordingly, the defense team for Casey Anthony asked the jury to declare the case a mistrial as the defendant could not have possibly killed her daughter. However, the gravity and magnitude of the evidence gathered by the team of forensic experts and investigators links the killing of deceased to the actions of the defendant even though she vehemently denied carrying out the act.
Therefore, the conclusion of the case relies on the forensic evidence provided by the prosecution, as the forensic evidence fulfills many steps in criminal investigations (Morse, 2015). The collection of evidence such as the remains of crime scene enables the law enforcement authorities to establish the major elements of criminal activities because it enhances the identity of the suspects. Holland (2015) contends that forensic evidence makes it possible for the investigators to establish the facts of the crime and as such, be able to link the testimony of the victim, which would either exonerate or interdict the suspect.
Dixit and Gothwal (2015) infer that the process of collecting evidence requires humongous amount of resources to trace and analyze the evidence while Holland (2015) proclaim that prosecutors prefer to use forensic evidence as it enhances the confirmation of crimes and proves cases as being beyond reasonable doubt. Morse (2015) argues that many jurors prefer to admit forensic evidence, as it proves beyond doubt that the defendant committed a crime. For instance, the location of forensic evidence in the Casey Anthony case proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant murdered her daughter and should be judged with first-degree murder.
Holland (2015) emphasizes that investigation organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation use advanced technology such as the DNA Index System (CODIS) and the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) as a means of matching the crime scene evidence and the individuals involved in criminal activities. For example, forensic analysis conducted on the hair band of the deceased highlighted that the modern technology enhances the performance forensic analysis to an extent that the investigators are able to present valid and admissible evidence in the court of law. Dixit and Gothwal (2015) suggest that the investigators in the Casey Anthony case were able to link the defendant to the murder of the deceased by collecting and analyzing evidence before arresting the suspect.
In summary, the courts of law rely on admissible evidence as a means of ascertaining the alleged involvement of the respondents before the court. Morse (2015) contends that criminal law requires material evidence as many eyewitnesses are no longer willing to testify and as such, forensic experts around the world are formulating ways that can enhance the collection of biological evidence. Holland (2015) infers that biological evidence in many criminal cases such as Casey Anthony’s case makes it possible for law enforcement authorities to conduct independent investigations, which include blood or bloodstain evidence, saliva, and seminal stains. Dixit and Gothwal (2015) deduce that criminal laws form essential part of the societal rules, as they enhance the social equilibrium by defining how societal members should behave. In light of Casey Anthony’s case, many jurors prefer to use material evidence derived from forensic investigations as a means of adjudicating criminal cases.

References
Dixit, N., & Gothwal, L. (2015). Comparative Study of Socio-Legal Aspects of DNA Technology with Especial Emphasis to the Indian Legal System. International Journal Of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 2(3), 84-91.
Holland, T. D. (2015). "SINCE I MUST PLEASE THOSE BELOW": HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS RESEARCH AND THE LAW. American Journal Of Law & Medicine, 41(4), 617-655. doi:10.1177/0098858815622192
Morse, S. J. (2015). CRIMINAL LAW AND COMMON SENSE: AN ESSAY ON THE PERILS AND PROMISE OF NEUROSCIENCE. Marquette Law Review, 99(1), 39-74.