Final answer:
The student's question inaccurately refers to the conviction of Ted Bundy when seeking information about individual evidence in a trial; however, the substantial evidence in Bundy's case included dental and forensic evidence. The overview also mentions Ronald Cotton, who was wrongfully convicted based on eyewitness testimony, only to be later exonerated through DNA evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question seems to mistake Ted Bundy for Ronald Cotton but is asking for information related to individual evidence used in historical criminal convictions. For Ted Bundy, there was substantial evidence including dental and bite mark evidence which matched him to one of his victims, Lisa Levy. Bundy was notorious for multiple kidnappings and murders, and the physical forensic evidence provided crucial individual evidence that linked him directly to the crimes.
It is crucial to note that in Ronald Cotton's case, Jennifer Thompson's eyewitness testimony was central to his conviction. She identified Cotton as her attacker both in a photo lineup and a physical lineup, though initial indicators of uncertainty put her total confidence into question. Despite this witness identification evidence, it was later discovered through DNA testing that Cotton was not the perpetrator, and he was subsequently exonerated after serving over a decade in prison.
In the context of individual evidence in criminal law, it refers to material or information that can be directly linked to a suspect, providing a higher degree of certainty about that individual's involvement in a crime compared to class evidence, which can apply to multiple individuals.