Abstract
Two hundred prosecuting attorneys completed a survey concerning priorities in taking on animal cruelty cases and the factors that help or hinder prosecuting such cases. Respondents commented on the priority given such cases. Questions also addressed specific kinds of evidence that had been used to decide whether to take on a cruelty case and were used in court. Results showed that prosecutors most frequently relied upon "traditional" sources of evidence, including detailed medical and crime scene reports and good quality photographic evidence. Other sources of forensic evidence such as DNA, computer forensics, forensic accounting, blood, and trace evidence were rarely employed. Veterinary forensic evidence, including forensic necropsies and detailed medical reports, was viewed as an important factor by a majority of prosecutors in deciding whether to accept a case for prosecution and in achieving a successful outcome, but a need for additional training for investigators was indicated.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
