Another Example of Why Greater Transparency is Need in Crime Labs

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.