Custody of Evidence One Error

Custody of Evidence

One Error in the Care of Custody

Potential Evidence possesses the potential to help convict criminals, Donna Lyons (2006, the CSI Effect section, ¶ 3), head of NCSL's Criminal Justice Program in Denver, Colorado, stresses in "Capturing DNA's crime fighting potential...." As the term "Rules of evidence" indicates, according to Cornell Law School's Web site, (Evidence, 2008), these rules proffer the court guidelines for determining evidence to be admissible at trial. State courts traditionally follow their particular rules, which state legislature usually imposes upon the state courts. The United States' federal courts adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence. To establish what evidence proves to be admissible, numerous rules of evidence initially focus on the offered evidence's relevance. "Rules of evidence also allocate among the parties the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuading the court" (Evidence, 2008). This paper, which explores the process involved in the care of evidence/chain of custody in persuading the court, examines how the process is established; how it directly affects major case Investigations and trials. The researcher contends that even one error in the care of custody related to evidence may damage the overall outcome of a case.

In one episode of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," a television drama, Will William Peterson, portraying lead investigator Gil Grissom remarks: "Physical evidence doesn't lie. it's not influenced by prejudice or emotion" (Lyons, 2006, the CSI Effect, ¶ 4). During the process of preparing and handling evidence, however, humans may lie as prejudice and emotion do influence them at times. In fact, sometimes, cases of individuals convicted of crimes, are overturned when new evidence confirms problems with previous evidence used in the conviction. During 2004, Houston lab's DNA section was shut down, after an audit revealed problems, including contaminated evidence. Due to insufficient staffing and training, staff poorly documented results of tested evidence. When auditors reviewed thousands of potentially affected cases, some which related to death row inmates, at least two wrongful convictions were identified. Consequently, when these individuals' cases were re-examined, the wrongfully convicted individuals were freed from prison. Senator John Whitmire, Houston lawyer and chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee stated problems with evidence in Texas during 2004 "made quality assurance a statewide concern" (Whitmire, cited in Lyons, 2006, Quality assurance section, ¶ 4). As a result, amidst allegations of significant problems in a number of police forensic labs, Texas lawmakers created the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The commission investigates suspected misconduct or incompetence contributing to flawed forensic science, recommends corrective action, then and follows up to ensure forensic labs resolve problem issues. When a robber commits a burglary in most states, Chris Asplen, U.S. assistant attorney, and vice president of the law firm Smith Alling Lane, states, his/her DNA is added to a database. In fact, a number of misdemeanors in half the states in the U.S. mandate that a DNA sample be secured as evidence (Asplen, cited in Lyons, 2006, ¶ 5). Forty-three states also mandate that state officials collect DNA samples from every convicted felon, which additionally increases the numbers of genetic profiles in state databases, and adds to problems for state forensic labs, which process evidence in from property crimes, sexual assaults and homicides, as they currently cannot keep up with the demands/requests for processing they receive. In addition to the number of hundreds of thousands of samples of DNA, and massive numbers of other evidence currently in states' data bases, states reportedly may have at least million more DNA samples owed to them by individuals whose state law mandates they provide a DNA sample (Morgan cited in Lyons, 2006, Backlogs persist section, ¶ 1-2). Although DNA databases are expanding and solving many cold cases, many crime labs currently do not have the funds to meet their obligations or fulfill their potential. Consequently, the backlog of evidence, including DNA, waiting to be tested and processed, continues to backlog throughout states in the U.S.

Mishandled Evidence

In "Trials & Tribulations: Science in the Courts," Susan Haack (2003) stresses that forensic technicians, as well as police officers, do make mistakes. These individuals, and others who handle evidence, have also deliberately falsified and/or misrepresented evidence. Jurors also sometimes misconstrue "the significance of expert testimony about the probability of a random match with the defendant, or of information about the likelihood that a sample was mishandled" (Haack, 2003, ¶ 3). - in addition, attorneys may deliberately contribute to such misunderstandings; while criminals circumvent DNA identification through devious ways.

Cynthia E. Jones (2005) notes in "Evidence destroyed, innocence lost: The preservation of biological evidence under innocence protection statutes," that in almost every jurisdiction in the U.S. innocent people had been wrongly convicted. In 2005, it had been confirmed that 163 innocent individuals, who had been wrongly convicted, had later been exonerated, due to DNA analysis performed on retained evidence. The practice of destroying evidence, such as rape kits, in the past, as well as currently, albeit, impedes utilizing DNA evidence to exonerate a person wrongly convicted of a crime (Jones). The destruction of evidence, as well as the skewing of evidence, as noted in the Martha Moxley case the researcher explores for this study, reveals how one or more errors in the care of custody can result in wrongful convictions. Chris Stirewalt (2000) points out an ideal practice for proper handling of evidence in, "Items often pile up: Keeping track of evidence can make, break case," that despite excellent testing on any piece of evidence is, unless it can be confirmed that those in control of the evidence continually maintained the chain of custody (at all times), the evidence's value is substantially harmed. Sergeant. Rick Theis, an officer who oversees a South Carolina Police lab, points out: "If an item is out of that chain for even a second, its value as evidence is substantially harmed" (Theis, cited in Stirewalt, ¶ 25).

From the minute evidence enters the South Charleston, West Virginia facility, until it is returned to the agency that ordered tests, a constant stream of paperwork monitors the process to ensure mistakes are avoided. To doubly ensure evidence is appropriately accounted for, except for times of regular audits to ensure correct protocols are practiced, only one individual in each detachment is permitted to enter its evidence room. The goal is to maintain control of the continually increasing mound of evidence that accumulate in evidence rooms (Stirewalt, 2000). During the process of storing evidence, an officer initially ensures the item is placed in the correct storage container. In the Charleston, West Virginia evidence room, officers use plastic bags for items, such as shell casings and/or other non-degradable evidence. Bloody or other organic items that need to breathe are placed in paper bags. Sharp objects are kept in plastic boxes.

After being placed in a container, an officer assigns a number to the item of evidence and places the item in a box if will fit. Then the box or item is placed in a bin, a segment of a shelving, about three foot square; in a unit, approximately 15 yards long, located in one of the three evidence rooms. The item of evidence may be located by the department's internal code which denotes the room, row and bin that houses the evidence. This process helps ensure the evidence can be readily retrieved (Stirewalt, 2000). To avoid problems in the chain of command for evidence, in addition to correctly logging in information regarding the initial care of information regarding evidence, the care/custody process requires limiting access and documenting any movement of evidence. Securing the chain of custody ideally, ultimately helps ensure errors do not lead to damaging an ensuing court case (Stirewalt, 2000). Cases Considered

Case of Martha Moxley

In "Miscarriage of justice:...a Connecticut jury convicted Michael Skakel of killing his neighbor Martha Moxley Twenty-Seven Years Ago...," Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2003) recounts the tragic death of Martha Moxley on Halloween in 1975, 32 years ago in 2008], compounded by the conviction of an innocent man, Michael Skakel, Kennedy Jr.'s first cousin. Kennedy Jr. purports: "At its best, every profession -- law, science, medicine, journalism -- is a search for the truth. But personal bias can distort and pervert that mission." (Kennedy Jr., Michael Skakel section, ¶ 13). Kenndey Jr. reports he also has experienced the murder of family members, and knows the anguish it entails. He contends, however, that the conviction of an innocent person, resulting from skewed evidence, dishonors the memory of the one murdered. Kennedy Jr. relates the following details regarding Martha Moxley's murder case:

Just after noon on Halloween, 1975, Martha Moxley, age fifteen, was found lying face down on her family property in the Belle Haven section of Greenwich, Connecticut. Her blue jeans and underpants were pulled down. Although strong evidence suggests that the attack was a sexual assault, the police concluded that Martha had not been raped. Her body had been dragged across the grass on a zigzag path from the Moxley driveway to the side of the lawn and hidden below the drooping boughs of a pine tree. She had been struck several times in the head with a Toney Penna golf club -- so ferociously that the club had shattered into multiple pieces -- and then stabbed in the neck with the broken shaft the club's handle and part of the shaft had vanished. (Kennedy Jr., 2003, Martha Moxley section, ¶ 1)

From evidence retrieved from the autopsy, police determined Moxley's murder occurred at approximately10:00 P.M..

On July 10, 1998, 23 years after Moxley's murder, "Connecticut authorities convened a one-man grand jury consisting of Judge George Thim. The state's attorney Jonathan Benedict took over the Moxley case and began a multimillion-dollar effort to convict Michael Skakel" (Kennedy Jr., 2003, Mark Fuhrman section, ¶ 5). Until this time, Greenwich police and state investigators considered Ken Littleton as the primary suspect for the murder of Moxley (Fuhrman, cited in Kennedy Jr., Mark Fuhrman section, ¶ 7). According to prosecutors' arguments, Skakel, in a jealous, drunken rage, killed Moxley after he saw his older brother kiss her. At that time, however, Skakel loved Francine Ziminsky, a family friend, and did not know any romance between Moxley and his brother even existed. Skakel's alibi conflicted with the time of Moxley's death, reported as 10:00 P.M. For Skakel's accusers to be correct, the evidence regarding the time of Moxley's death had to be skewed, by moving it up. To counter this concern, albeit, Fuhrman asserted, contrary to the medical examiner's assertion establishing Moxley's time of death to have occurred at the time when Skakel could not have committed it, that food may remain in a person's stomach as long as six hours, allowing for the murder to have possibly past the time of Skake's alibi (Kennedy Jr., 2003).

Various members of Skake's family speculated that strong evidence did not point to Ken Littleton, but to Franz Wittine, a previous Skakel gardener. None of Skake's family imagined Michael would be charged or convicted of Moxley's crime. During Skakel's trial, one witness held a three-ring binder which contained almost three decades' worth of police information related to Littleton, along with a summary of the state's case against him. Kennedy Jr. (2003) asserts that information in this binder could have proved valuable to Skakel'defense, however, the was not placed in evidence, nor marked as an exhibit (Kennedy Jr., Mickey Sherman section, ¶ 7) Kennedy Jr. reports he grew up with a reverence for the American justice system, and considered it almost infallible. He stated he learned, however, the truth of the words of Michael Baden, New York's former chief medical examiner: "Notorious crimes have to be very carefully prosecuted because it is so easy to get a conviction without physical evidence. This is the very time to be more cautious, not less cautious, so that a bad decision isn't made..." (Kennedy Jr., 2003, Michael Skakel section, ¶ 7). Juries make mistakes. A skilful prosecutor may persuade an honest jury to convict a person who is actually innocent. This fact has been recently, repeatedly confirmed by a number of DNA exonerations of death-row inmates. During the last 10 minutes of the trial, culminating in Skakel's conviction, Benedict presented a sophisticated, poignant multimedia display that "superimposed Michael's statements, out of context, on gruesome pictures of Martha's slain body" (Kennedy Jr., Michael Skakel section, ¶ 6). Numerous legal analysts later criticized this fabricated evidence to be prejudicial and deceptive.

Lori Caldwell, Lori. (2004) recounts details of a not so publicized case in: "Gun missing as evidence, so Gary man acquitted." Due to the disappearance of a handgun as evidence, Aaron Allen, 22, was acquitted of a weapons charge in court.

Allen had reported been riding in a car the police stopped March 26, 2003. Allen claimed the missing.22-caliber revolver the police found under the car seat did not belong to him. As there was no gun; there was no case. Highlights from another case, with results posted on Newsday's Website, "Complete coverage: Limo crash" (2007) portray how missing evidence could potentially damage a case and result in a guilty person not being convicted. Ultimately the case of a Martin Heidgen, a drunken driver, who killed two people when he drove down a highway the wrong way, ended with Heidgen being convicted. During the course of the conviction, as the following points note, concerns regarding evidence caused the family of the youngest victim, Katie Flynn, seven-years-old, unnecessary heartaches.

May 30, 2007 report notes that, following Heidgen's conviction, Katie's parents verbalized their support for a proposed law relating to imprisoning drunken drivers who seriously injured and/or killed people. Katie's parents, however, did not share, however, the obvious painful experiences regarding evidence for the case of their daughter's death, including "inadmissible evidence" a jury forewoman later reported she and other jurors relied on for their verdict to vote to convict Heidgen of murder. During the course of this trial, "legal wrangling over murder suspect Martin Heidgen's blood" occurred, prior to a Nassau judge ultimately permitting a toxicologist to inform jurors Heidgen "had three times the legal limit of alcohol in his system when he crashed his pickup truck into a limousine in July 2005, killing two people" "Complete coverage," 2007). State Police reportedly mishandled blood evidence in this particular case.