Advances in science may lead to new forensic-technical investigation methods, which can still confirm a convicted person's statement after a final conviction. In such a case, a review procedure can offer a solution. A review application is only considered if there are new facts that shed new light on the case. And such that the irrevocable conviction is called into question. But it is also possible that new light is shed on the case by investigation results that could also have been discovered at the time of the criminal case, but which investigation was simply not carried out. 

Then, of course, it is a waste of time (and money) that that investigation was not carried out during the criminal trial. After all, review procedures take a very long time and at that stage, having new investigations carried out is, in principle, the responsibility of the convicted person. Moreover, given the strict criteria for a successful review, it remains to be seen whether the new findings will have the intended effect. However much these findings would have been relevant during the criminal trial. 

So be active in your criminal trial from the beginning. At the beginning of a criminal case, many more types of investigation can be carried out. By the public prosecutor, but certainly also at the request of the defence. Given the time limits during remand, these investigations also proceed more quickly. Moreover, in many cases an investigation can be carried out at the State's expense. Last but not least, the earlier the investigations are conducted, the more difficult it is for the judge to ignore the results. The accusation: 'you are only now coming up with that', will then be heard less. 

Remaining silent and sitting back is less and less an effective litigation posture. Increasingly, an explanation for incriminating investigation results will be sought left or right. An explanation, or 'an alternative scenario' that exonerates the suspect, can be supported by forensic research. Think here not only of DNA testing, but also, for example, shooting range reconstructions, gunshot residue research, handwriting research or research by a legal psychologist regarding a witness statement. Especially if witnesses are questioned several times or at a later time, it is useful to investigate to what extent outside influence has taken place. Furthermore, when, for example, DNA material is found at a crime scene, this is often seen as incriminating the suspect. Forensic investigation can then be used to look for other, plausible explanations for the presence of the DNA material. Consider, for example, indirect transmission of DNA traces. 

Thus, requests to carry out (forensic) investigative acts may be made at various times during the criminal proceedings. In case a request relating to this investigation is refused, legal remedies are available. But it is also possible to have forensic investigations carried out in-house. The advantage of this is that, in the first instance, only the defence has any influence on how the investigation is conducted. In addition, only the defence gets to see the results. Depending on the results, the defence may consider having the results added to the case file. However, it is important here that the investigation is conducted by an expert who meets the requirements set by law for a judicial expert. A disadvantage of conducting forensic investigations in-house is that the costs initially fall on the defendant. However, in the event of an acquittal, these costs can be recovered. This may be worthwhile.  

For a proper defence, knowledge of the possibilities in the field of forensics is of great value. An active trial attitude will therefore increasingly make the difference. 

Ms M. Ortner