Miscellaneous

Ripped from the Headlines

By Anne Skove, Esq.

It sounds like an episode of Law & Order: main suspect in a assault/multiple murder case killed in a shootout. His mother is successfully prosecuted on complicity charges after the police say she visited the scene in the middle of the night to destroy evidence. Then the late, great Jerry Orbach makes a snarky comment.

But this took place in reality, in Syracuse, where there is usually snow on the ground. No footprints were ever found by the snowy scene.

Nearly twenty years later, the mother wins a civil suit for malicious prosecution. During a job interview with the CIA, an investigator admitted to fabricating fingerprint evidence linking the mother to the scene. Not only did he not get the job, but the CIA reported him to authorities.

The chain of custody of the faux prints was an adventure in negligence. The three faint prints were not tagged or bagged, no photos were taken of the gas can where they were supposedly found, etc., etc.

Why bother with this kind of story? Because it sounds crazy, but it can happen. A case like this indicates the slew of points along the way where a case can go very wrong. From pretend evidence to bad preservation to overzealous prosecution, beware, beware, beware.

Servants to law and order: don't be a hero if the facts don't back you up. The costs to the system and to public trust are enormous.

See Judge Rules for Kinge in Civil Trial, Linda Stout and David Hill, Ithaca Journal (February 27, 2008).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on February 27, 2008 (boomark / email).