{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026149684400360685, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.379310344827586, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legal storytelling in pre-trial investigations: arguing for a wider perspective on forensic evidence

Forensic evidence, and most prominently DNA evidence, is often understood as particularly reliable and “objective.” However, just as other evidence, forensic evidence must be interpreted and thus made meaningful in order to “say” something about a defendant's culpability. This paper discusses how meaning is created from and around forensic evidence: in criminal trials, evidence is placed in legally meaningful narratives that draw upon well-known cultural scripts and categories and that associate (or disassociate) a defendant with legal categories and consequences. The paper will demonstrate that these stories are not only told in court as a means of arguing a case, but are also continuously told and re-shaped during pre-trial investigations, as evidence in a case is assembled and assessed. Consequently, I argue that, in order to understand forensic evidence, it is just as important to pay attention to pre-trial investigations as it is to study forensic laboratories and courtroom interactions.