A 1993 homicide conviction was recently overturned by a judicial review panel. The reason? The state didn’t disclose information to the criminal defense attorney (or even the jury), that would potentially exculpatory to the defendant.
Remember in the United States we have an adversarial legal system. Attorneys for both sides basically try to “sell” their theory of the case to the jury. The state has a bit of an advantage in that they are unfettered access to the evidence, an army of investigators, and high tech crime labs to support their case.
Many times there is no defense side for months, or even years, because there is no suspect charged in the case. It’s only once someone is arrested, and a team is put together, that a defense can be developed. By that time much of the evidence can be lost, or consumed in the crime lab. The defense is always playing catch-up to the state when it comes to the physical evidence.
This disadvantage is somewhat balanced by the fact that the state has the burden of proof. That is to say that in criminal trials, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.
Imagine if the state, during the course of it’s investigation comes across evidence that would tend to indicate the defendant didn’t commit the crime (not to mention flat out proves the defendant couldn’t have done it). Wouldn’t you expect the state to drop charges against the defendant and start looking at other suspects? You wouldn’t expect the state to hide that evidence from not only the defense, but also the jury.
I’ve met prosecutors that, by policy, had to continue on with the case fully knowing the defendant was not guilty, but didn’t hide evidence.
I’ve met prosecutors who have stopped forensic examinations mid-stream when preliminary results didn’t support their theory of the case, and not share that data with the defense or jury.
Consider what happened in North Carolina (from NewsObserver.com):
When Taylor was tried in 1993 in connection with the murder of a Raleigh woman, prosecutors made much of an SBI agent’s report that blood had been found on Taylor’s vehicle. But that report turned out to have been based on preliminary findings. A necessary follow-up test had failed to confirm blood’s presence. That result was not shared with the Wake County district attorney’s office or with Taylor’s counsel.
Taylor was convicted, but was recently freed from prison when a panel of judges agreed with the recommendation of the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission.
Turning over evidence that tends to show a suspect didn’t do what he stands accused of doing is about as basic as it gets when it comes to fair play in the justice system. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has long viewed such disclosure as an obligation on the part of authorities. North Carolina law dating to the late 1990s requires the prosecution to share all of its information with the defense, but older cases in particular should be scrubbed for signs that exculpatory evidence was swept under the state’s rug.
Certainly most prosecutors, police officers, and crime lab staff wouldn’t condone these types of practices. That being said many do.
Just another reason to pull forensic labs out of police and prosecuting agencies, and make them independent – even if still government run.
