Good forensic scientists are supposed to be impartial. Their job is to simply explain to a jury what the physical evidence means in a case. Forensic scientists don’t have a horse in the race, so to speak. Regardless of which side calls them for testimony, some forensic testimony can help both sides, and some of the testimony can hurt both sides. A good forensic scientist doesn’t let that bother them, or affect their testimony.
Recently I was hired by the military to aide in the defense of a US serviceman who was charged with committing a drive-by shooting. Reviewing the case material, I didn’t think I would be able to help much, because the evidence I needed to examine had not been preserved when evidence was collected at the crime scene. Regardless, the defense flew me out to investigate the shooting scene.
At the scene I took all the measurements I could, but ultimately I stuck with my original opinion. I didn’t think I could help the defense because what I considered an important piece of evidence for my investigation was not preserved. But the attorney insisted they needed me, and as I later discovered, my measurements and analysis at the scene was exactly what they needed.
The case boiled down to a drive-by shooting, involving two occupants in the vehicle, the driver and passenger, each pointing the finger at the other as the shooter. There was only one other eyewitness, who implicated the driver as the shooter.
Based upon the independent eyewitness account of the incident, the government granted immunity to the passenger of the vehicle in exchange for testimony against the driver. The problem was, during the defense portion of the investigation, a second eyewitness was brought in, whose testimony contradicted the first eyewitness. More importantly, the second eyewitness’s account of events with the passenger as the shooter made a lot more sense. But now that the government had granted the passenger immunity, it was too late to charge the passenger with the shooting.
In most jurisdictions, at this point the case against the driver would have probably been dropped. In the military though, due to external pressure, dropping the case wasn’t an option. The government had to move forward with what had become a very weak case.
In trial, the eyewitness who claimed the driver was the shooter was quickly discredited. In simple terms, there was no way any rational jury member would believe a word this witness said. This left only the testimony of the passenger to convince the jury that it was the driver who did the shooting.
The passenger spun a fanciful tale of the events, including a few very specific points that didn’t hold water against the physical evidence. This is where I came in. Due to the measurements I had taken at the scene, I quickly exposed one of the fabrications that the jury easily understood. Another expert testified about additional physical evidence that also was at odds with the passenger’s testimony.
There was more to the case of course, much more. It involved excellent forensic work by the government’s own forensic scientists. But their forensic work still didn’t answer the question of who fired the weapon.
It involved problematic field work by the government’s crime scene technicians. Not that they did anything deliberately wrong, simply this particular case involved physical evidence that was beyond the scope of their training and experience to know how to recognize and properly collect. This evidence could have helped prove the innocence of the driver, was lost forever when improperly collected.
In the end, the jury quickly came back with not guilty on all charges.
So, in a jurisdiction where the government simply doesn’t lose many cases, and where they will not back down when wrong, I felt a certain amount of satisfaction knowing that my testimony was used to help exonerate an innocent young man who honorably served and protected our country.
I salute him, and wish him the best future.
No related posts.
