Forensic Evidence Integrity in Jordan: Strengthening Prosecutorial Oversight and Digital Governance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66325/nusantaralaw.v5i2.446Keywords:
Digital Governance; Evidence Integrity; Forensic Evidence; Jordanian Law; Prosecutorial Oversight.Abstract
This study examines whether the Jordanian public prosecutor's supervisory powers are sufficient to protect forensic evidence from contamination, undocumented handling, technical error, and chain-of-custody weaknesses, and asks how contemporary forensic standards and digital technologies can be incorporated into prosecutorial oversight without shifting scientific decision-making from forensic specialists to legal authorities. Using qualitative doctrinal, comparative, and standards-based analysis, the study analyses Jordanian criminal-procedure regulations and assesses them against international forensic and digital-evidence standards using six analytical dimensions: legality, identity, continuity, scientific reliability, traceability, and accountability. The findings indicate that Jordanian law provides meaningful prosecutorial authority and recognizes the evidentiary value of scientific expertise. Nonetheless, the legal and institutional materials examined reveal deficiencies in standardized lifecycle documentation, digital chain-of-custody controls, technical traceability, validation records, exception reporting, and auditable prosecutorial review. Drawing on these legal and forensic findings, the study proposes the Prosecutorial Integrity and Digital Evidence Governance (PIDEG) Model, which integrates unique evidence identification, digital chain-of-custody documentation, technical metadata, validation controls, exception alerts, access restrictions, audit trails, and defined prosecutorial review. Academically, the study contributes a legal-technological governance framework for Jordan that integrates prosecutorial oversight, forensic quality assurance, and digital evidence governance within a coherent evidentiary framework. Under this model, prosecutors function as procedural and governance overseers responsible for legality, documentation, accountability, and review, while forensic scientists remain independent professionals responsible for scientific validation and interpretation.
Downloads
References
Abdel Wahab, I. A. M. “Implications of Using Hologram Technology at the Crime Scene to Reduce the Phenomenon of Crime Reenactment.” Al-Majalla Al-Qanuniyya 22, no. 1 (2024): 127–228. https://doi.org/10.21608/jlaw.2024.393340.
Ait Hamouda, K. “Search and Criminal Investigations in Electronic Crime Scene.” Majallat Al-Fikr Al-Qanuni Wa Al-Siyasi 7, no. 1 (2023): 180–201.
Al Naghi, M. A. R. “Authenticity of Scientific Proof in Criminal Evidence: A Comparative Study.” Police Thought 28, no. 109 (2019): 179–223. https://doi.org/10.12816/0052945.
Alghathian, Ghazi Ayed, Mohammad Saleh Alqudah, Adel Salem Allouzi, and Mashal Mufleh Jarrah. “Contemporary Issues in Arbitration Agreements: Sharia Public Order and Civil Law Perspectives.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 5, no. 2 (2026): 1071–1102. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i2.13682.
Ali, Mahrus, Hamad F. Al-Fahad, and Wasikh Maulana. “Philosophical Foundation, Application, and Controversies of Judicial Pardon in Islamic Criminal Law, Indonesian Penal Code, and the Criminal Justice System of Kuwait.” De Jure: Jurnal Hukum Dan Syar’iah 17, no. 2 (2025): 624–648. https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v17i2.32629.
Al-Shurman, Mohammed Ali Khaled, Wail Abouabaid, Hasan Jassam Ahmed, Maher Ali Ahmad Al-Khaldi, Jamal Awwad Alkharman, and Hamdan Ghunemat. “Rethinking the Cyber Regulatory Framework for Data Access Consent: Legal Challenges and Reform in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies 5, no. 2 (2026): 1180–1201. https://doi.org/10.66325/nusantaralaw.v5i2.367.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. Standard for Scene Investigation and Reconstruction—Foundational Principles. ANSI/ASB Standard 159-24. 2024. https://www.nist.gov/osac/standards-library/ansiasb-standard-159-24.
Arab, A. A. M. “Authentic Modern Scientific Evidence in Penal Evidence (A Comparative Study).” Master’s thesis, Isra University, 2020. https://www.iu.edu.jo/iuthesis/search/thesis_details.php?id=739.
Azizah, Imroatul, Mabarroh Azizah, Saiful Bakhri, Suqiyah Musafa’ah, Amang Fathurrohman, and Shofa Robbani. “Reconstructing Islamic Criminal Liability for Economic Crimes: A Maqasid-Based Framework for Indonesia’s Sharia Finance.” El-Mashlahah 16, no. 1 (2026): 41–64. https://doi.org/10.23971/el-mashlahah.v16i1.11254.
Bani Taha, M. S. I., and F. M. A. Musleh. “Community Service as One of the Alternatives to Freedom-Depriving Penalties in Jordanian Legislation (A Comparative Study).” Arab Researcher Journal 4, no. 3 (2023): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.57072/ar.v4i3.105.
Basset, P., and V. Castella. “Lessons from a Study of DNA Contaminations from Police Services and Forensic Laboratories in Switzerland.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 33 (2018): 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.12.012.
Ben Khelifa, I. “Physical Traces Scattered at the Crime Scene: Their Concept, Types, and How Technical Experts Deal with Them.” Majallat Al-Nadwa Lil-Dirasat Al-Qanuniyya, no. 1 (2013): 25–37. https://doi.org/10.12816/0006270.
Beneddine, F. “The Role of the Scientific Police at the Crime Scene.” Majallat Al-Huquq Wa Al-Ulum Al-Insaniyya 15, no. 4 (2022): 667–686.
Burri, X., E. Casey, T. Bollé, and D. O. Jaquet-Chiffelle. “Chronological Independently Verifiable Electronic Chain of Custody Ledger Using Blockchain Technology.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 33 (2020): 300976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.300976.
Carew, R. M., J. French, and R. M. Morgan. “3D Forensic Science: A New Field Integrating 3D Imaging and 3D Printing in Crime Reconstruction.” Forensic Science International: Synergy 3 (2021): 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100205.
Code of Criminal Procedure No. 9 of 1961, as Amended (1961). https://moj.gov.jo/AR/ListDetails/%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%83%D9%85/2303/5.
Curley, L. J., J. Munro, M. Lages, R. MacLean, and J. Murray. “Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 65, no. 2 (2020): 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14220.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-509/USREPORTS-509-579.
Dror, I. E. “The Error in ‘Error Rate’: Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 65, no. 4 (2020): 1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14435.
Dror, I. E., and M. L. Pierce. “ISO Standards Addressing Issues of Bias and Impartiality in Forensic Work.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 65, no. 3 (2020): 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14265.
Ehjelah, A., and B. Al-Qawasmeh. “Extent of Criminal Liability of the Manufacturer of Medical Robots for Crimes Caused by Them Under Jordanian and Emirati Law.” Manchester Journal of Transnational Islamic Law & Practice 22, no. 1 (2026): 20–31.
Ehjelah, A., R. Faqir, Y. Obeidat, M. H. M. Al-Adwan, and S. B. Amer. “Abortion-Related Maternal Deaths: A Comparative Study of Criminal Law in Jordan, the UAE, and Europe.” Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 9, no. 2 (2026): 280–319. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-9.2-a000191.
Ehjelah, A., Y. Obeidat, H. Abu Issa, et al. “IT Audit and the Legal Responsibilities of Digital Platformo Managers: A Comparative Study.” EDPACS, 2026, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2026.2688576.
ElKady, R. “Digital Forensic Evidence in the Egyptian Legislation: In Light of the Provisions of Law No. 175 of 2018 and Its Executive Regulations, Comparative Legislation and International Covenants.” Journal of Law and Emerging Technologies 2, no. 1 (2022): 177–246. https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v2i1.9.
Emar, O. M., M. Bani Taha, R. N. Abuelzeet, and K. J. Alawamleh. “Internal Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance: An Analytical Study on Jordan’s Non-Ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.” International Journal of Public Law and Policy 9, no. 1 (2023): 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLAP.2023.127315.
Enggarsasi, Umi, Nur Khalimatus Sa’diyah, and Pratama Alifiandi Martio. “Legal Safeguards for Victims of Data Dissemination Crimes and Cybercrime Protection.” Jurnal Hukum 40, no. 2 (2024): 258–277. https://doi.org/10.26532/jh.v40i2.39974.
European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. Best Practice Manual for Human Forensic Biology and DNA Profiling. ENFSI-DNA-BPM-03, Version 01. 2022. https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ENFSI-DNA-BPM-03.pdf.
Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Forensic DNA Interpretation. Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving Practice through a Systems Approach. NIST IR 8503. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8503.
Faizah, Nur. “The Spiritualization of Domestic Violence in the Digital Era: Examining the Cathartic Role of Religious Institutions in Empowering Victims.” De Jure: Jurnal Hukum Dan Syar’iah 15, no. 2 (2023): 251–267. https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v15i2.23297.
Febriyani, Emiliya, and Tantimin Tantimin. “Legal Challenges of Asset Misappropriation in the Digital Era.” Nurani: Jurnal Kajian Syari’ah Dan Masyarakat 25, no. 1 (2025): 141–156. https://doi.org/10.19109/nurani.v25i1.26821.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702: Testimony by Expert Witnesses (2023). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.
Fonneløp, A. E., T. Egeland, and P. Gill. “Secondary and Subsequent DNA Transfer during Criminal Investigation.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 17 (2015): 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.05.009.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1013 (1923).
Frye v. United States (1923).
Fukuda, H., L. Ebert, F. Kreitmeier, et al. “From 3D Surface Documentation to Visualization in Forensic Practice: A Review of Current Methods and Emerging Technologies.” APMIS 134, no. 4 (2026): e70215. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.70215.
Galanakis, G., X. Zabulis, T. Evdaimon, et al. “A Study of 3D Digitisation Modalities for Crime Scene Investigation.” Forensic Sciences 1, no. 2 (2021): 56–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1020008.
Hellwas, Ismael, Khamees Abdullah Abdullah, Hameed Hammadi, Amal Yousef Alrfoua, and Dena Kalaf Ahmad Alalwan. “From Administrative Function to Professional Governance: Institutionalising Functional Specialisation for Corruption Prevention in Public Procurement.” Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies 5, no. 2 (2026): 1617–1652. https://doi.org/10.66325/nusantaralaw.v5i2.412.
Helmina, Helmina, Hermanto Harun, Doli Witro, Muh Zaitun Ardi, and Darti Busni. “Compromising and Repositioning the Meaning of Corruptors as Thieves in Applying the Provisions of Shara’ into the Modern Era Context.” Al-’Adalah 21, no. 1 (2024): 25–52. https://doi.org/10.24042/adalah.v21i1.21251.
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. ILAC-G19:06/2022: Modules in a Forensic Science Process. 2022. https://ilac.org/publications-and-resources/ilac-guidance-series/.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 18385:2016: Minimizing the Risk of Human DNA Contamination in Products Used to Collect, Store and Analyze Biological Material for Forensic Purposes—Requirements. ISO, 2016. https://www.iso.org/standard/62341.html.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21043-1:2025: Forensic Sciences—Part 1: Vocabulary. ISO, 2025. https://www.iso.org/standard/87128.html.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21043-2:2018: Forensic Sciences—Part 2: Recognition, Recording, Collecting, Transport and Storage of Items. ISO, 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/72041.html.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21043-3:2025: Forensic Sciences—Part 3: Analysis. ISO, 2025. https://www.iso.org/standard/72040.html.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21043-4:2025: Forensic Sciences—Part 4: Interpretation. ISO, 2025. https://www.iso.org/standard/72039.html.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21043-5:2025: Forensic Sciences—Part 5: Reporting. ISO, 2025. https://www.iso.org/standard/73896.html.
International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 17025:2017: General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO, 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html.
International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 27037:2012: Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition and Preservation of Digital Evidence. ISO, 2012. https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html.
International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 27041:2015: Guidance on Assuring Suitability and Adequacy of Incident Investigative Method. ISO, 2015. https://www.iso.org/standard/44405.html.
International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 27042:2015: Guidelines for the Analysis and Interpretation of Digital Evidence. ISO, 2015. https://www.iso.org/standard/44406.html.
International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 27043:2015: Incident Investigation Principles and Processes. ISO, 2015. https://www.iso.org/standard/44407.html.
Irhouma, M. M. “The Evidentiary Value of DNA Fingerprint as Criminal Evidence.” Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine 1, no. 4 (2016): 460–475. https://doi.org/10.12816/0033138.
Jararweh, A., and Y. M. G. Obeidat. “Judicial Jurisdiction in Resolving Disputes Arising from Professional Sports Contracts.” Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 34, no. 1 (2026): 321–341. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v34i1.43700.
Jayasinga, Ika Pusparini Anindita, Agus Triono, Muhammad Akib, Elfa Murdiana, and Muhimmatul Mukaromah. “Building Digital Justice: Reinterpreting Ḥifẓ al-ʿIrḍ in Personal Data Protection and Legal Aid for Data Breach Victims in Indonesia.” Justicia Islamica 23, no. 2 (2026): 701–728. https://doi.org/10.21154/justicia.v23i2.13432.
Kessler, M. P. “From Bias Awareness to Governance Control: Regulating Human Factors across the Forensic Science Evidence Lifecycle.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 71, no. 4 (2026): 1547–1555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70319.
Kheiri, Murtada Abdalla, Racem Gassara, Nizar Qashta, and Mohammed Elsadig Abdallah Mohammed Zain. “The Right to Digital Tranquility: A Comparative Analysis of AI Governance in Oman and Jordan from an Islamic Legal Perspective.” Justicia Islamica 22, no. 2 (2025): 411–436. https://doi.org/10.21154/justicia.v22i2.11259.
Kloosterman, A., M. Sjerps, and A. Quak. “Error Rates in Forensic DNA Analysis: Definition, Numbers, Impact and Communication.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 12 (2014): 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014.
Kottner, S., M. J. Thali, and D. Gascho. “Using the iPhone’s LiDAR Technology to Capture 3D Forensic Data at Crime and Crash Scenes.” Forensic Imaging 32 (2023): 200535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fri.2023.200535.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-526/USREPORTS-526-137.
Lapointe, M., A. Rogic, S. Bourgoin, C. Jolicoeur, and D. Séguin. “Leading-Edge Forensic DNA Analyses and the Necessity of Including Crime Scene Investigators, Police Officers and Technicians in a DNA Elimination Database.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 19 (2015): 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.06.002.
Lyle, J. R., B. Guttman, J. M. Butler, K. Sauerwein, C. Reed, and C. E. Lloyd. Digital Investigation Techniques: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review. NIST IR 8354. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2022. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8354.
Mihoub, Y., and A. Rittab. “The Doctor’s Analysis of the Crime’s Scene.” Dirasat Wa Abhath 7, no. 21 (2015): 480–493. https://doi.org/10.35157/0578-000-021-031.
Nasution, Khoiruddin, Muhammad Sirojudin Sidiq, Ibnu Akbar Maliki, Chorieva Mukhlisa Jumamurodovna, and Muhammad Viegri. “The Judicial Interpretation of ‘Very Urgent Reasons’: Child Protection, Family Morality, and Marriage Dispensation in Indonesia.” Journal of Islamic Law 7, no. 2 (2026): 329–360. https://doi.org/10.24260/jil.v7i2.4295.
Nath, S., K. Summers, J. Baek, and G. J. Ahn. “Digital Evidence Chain of Custody: Navigating New Realities of Digital Forensics.” 2024, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS-ISA62245.2024.00012.
National Forensic Science Technology Center. Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement. NCJ 243598. Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2013. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/crime-scene-investigation-guide-law-enforcement.
National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. National Academies Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589.
Obeidat, Yusuf, Maha Y. Khasawneh, and Naeem A. Al Otoum. “The Jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation in Jordan: Interpreting Judicial Decisions and Case Law.” Information Sciences Letters 12, no. 7 (2023). https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/isl/vol12/iss7/46.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016). United Nations, 2017. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf.
Oorschot, R. A. H. van, B. Szkuta, G. E. Meakin, B. Kokshoorn, and M. Goray. “DNA Transfer in Forensic Science: A Review.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 38 (2019): 140–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.10.014.
Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. Standard for On-Scene Collection and Preservation of Physical Evidence. OSAC 2021-N-0018, Version 2.0. 2024. https://www.nist.gov/standard/756.
Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. Standard for Scene Documentation Procedures. OSAC 2023-N-0002, Version 2.0. 2024. https://www.nist.gov/osac/registry.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Executive Office of the President, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.
Ramdaoui, S., and M. E. A. Moumni. “Genetic Evidence between Effectiveness of His Evidentiary Function and Practical Problems in Criminal Proceedings.” Majallat Al-Qanun Wa Al-Ulum Al-Siyasiyya 9, no. 1 (2023): 727–744.
Regulation No. 96 of 2018 on the Use of Modern Technology in Criminal Procedures (2018). https://moj.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/en/eb_list_page/law_no._%2896%29_of_2018_on_the_use_of_modern_technology_in_criminal_procedures.pdf.
Rudin, N., K. Inman, and M. Noureddine. “Documentation, Investigation, and Disclosure of Contamination Events.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 70, no. 2 (2025): 815–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15709.
Salim, M., and M. M. Almunjed. “The Validity of Digital Evidence in Criminal Evidence.” Journal of Legal Sciences 40, no. 4 (2026): 760–780. https://doi.org/10.35246/xha4w759.
Setiyawan, Deni, Ismet Hadi, Noor Rahmad, Aditya Maulana Rizqi, and Kuni Nasihatun Arifah. “Law Enforcement of Sexual Violence on Social Media: An Islamic Restorative Justice Perspective.” De Jure: Jurnal Hukum Dan Syar’iah 17, no. 1 (2025): 90–111. https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v17i1.28185.
Sofiani, Trianah, Iqbal Kamalludin, and Raihanah Abdullah. “Violence Against Women in Pre-Marital Relationships: The Ngemblok Tradition among the Muslim Community in Rembang.” Journal of Islamic Law 5, no. 2 (2024): 147–169. https://doi.org/10.24260/jil.v5i2.2680.
Sukma, Fajar, and Zulheldi Zulheldi. “Government Policies in Economic Empowerment of Muslim Communities in the Digital Economy Era.” El-Mashlahah 11, no. 2 (2021): 146–163. https://doi.org/10.23971/elma.v11i2.3108.
United Nations. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. Havana, Cuba, 1990. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/prosecutors.pdf.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Crime Scene and Physical Evidence: Awareness for Non-Forensic Personnel. United Nations, 2009. https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/Crime_scene_awareness__Ebook.pdf.
Wang, J., Z. Li, W. Hu, et al. “Virtual Reality and Integrated Crime Scene Scanning for Immersive and Heterogeneous Crime Scene Reconstruction.” Forensic Science International 303 (2019): 109943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109943.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohammed Bany Taha, Malek Hamad, Dhya Numan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
