Chain of custody (Evidence)

[seattlewag]

When did this case occur? Because "several decades ago" just about predates the use of DNA in courts. It is possible that they were testing for blood type instead which was far more common (unfortunately) back then. In any case if this is that old than honestly all bets are off. It sounds like the defense attorney's story was that they took a cutting from the panties and tried to dispose of the rest and he somehow acquired it. That is something that really should never happen today but who knows back then? Even today sometimes cuttings are done at the lab and sometimes they are done by the ID officer. If the officer does the cuttings then they just send that piece of fabric to the lab and they keep the garment in evidence. I can absolutely picture a small town or otherwise inexperienced officer making a cutting and throwing the rest out in the dumpster. Or did this case get reopened later after a closed investigation or a reversal? After a conviction evidence is often destroyed or even released to the owner... and mix ups do happen.

It is also entirely possible that the defense attorney bluffed and said he had the panties when in fact he didn't. If all of this smoke and mirrors was simply used as leverage on the prosecutor to make a better plea offer, than you've got a case of a defense attorney who probably violated the rules of professional responsibility... but not necessarily much more than that.

A magnifying glass sounds about right. He wouldn't be looking for microscopic evidence he'd be looking for stains to see whether there is anything there to process and test. I can see the expert saying he can't do anything because there is nothing left on the panties to test. I do not see how the expert could examine the panties, minus the cutting, and conclude anything about what evidence could be gathered from the cutting the State has. That seems to be what you are suggesting happened but I'm thinking something is getting lost in translation.

It is really impossible to come up with a plausible scenario based on so few facts. If you want to tell us more about the case that would really help.

This is actually a 1975 1st Degree rape case. It occurred in the south. The court records and medical records for it were both supposedly lost years later in a natural disaster.

The defense attorney/public defender of record claims that after the crime lab cut out the portion of the defendant's underwear which had blood residue on it, they tested it and then threw out the swath of fabric they had tested. That crucial evidence therefore was lost, but the underwear themselves still remained. The defense attorney claims she then got a "special court order" to take what was left of the defendant's underwear to a potential expert witness in NYC, a renowned forensic blood science expert. The expert had not been retained yet by the defense. She says she made an appointment, met him, pulled out the underwear, handed them to him, he examined them with a magnifying glass, then gave her the answer she was looking for: The remaining evidence would be inadequate for testing. She claims to have returned home and used the threat of flying this expert in to discredit the evidence, in order to get the case pled all the way down to a minor sex offense, for which the defendant ended up serving 2 months in the county jail (time served).

 

[LdiJ]

This is actually a 1975 1st Degree rape case. It occurred in the south. The court records and medical records for it were both supposedly lost years later in a natural disaster.

The defense attorney/public defender of record claims that after the crime lab cut out the portion of the defendant's underwear which had blood residue on them, they tested it and then threw out the swath of fabric they had tested. That crucial evidence therefore was lost, but the underwear themselves still remained. The defense attorney claims she then got a "special court order" to take what was left of the defendant's underwear to a potential expert witness in NYC, a renowned forensic blood science expert. The expert had not been retained yet by the defense. She says she made an appointment, met him, pulled out the underwear, handed them to him, he examined them with a magnifying glass, then gave her the answer she was looking for: The remaining evidence would be inadequate for testing. She claims to have returned home and used the threat of flying this expert in to discredit the evidence, in order to get the case pled all the way down to a minor sex offense, for which the defendant ended up serving 2 months in the county jail (time served).

Something like that could not happen today. DNA can be matched with the tiniest of samples. Back then DNA testing was not available...and the chain of custody much to rigid to allow something like a lawyer transporting the evidence.

 

[seattlewag]

Something like that could not happen today. DNA can be matched with the tiniest of samples. Back then DNA testing was not available...and the chain of custody much to rigid to allow something like a lawyer transporting the evidence.

Thank you for the reply.

Have you ever heard of a case where an attorney obtained a "special court order" to take sole custody of the evidence, in order to transport it out of state? From just a logical layman's viewpoint, and certainly not a scientific or legal one, I could conceive of this being done under extraordinary circumstances, maybe, if a crime lab technician were taken along to maintain the integrity and custody at all times. But there aren't many other scenarios I can conceive of.

Are there typically laws regarding chain of custody? Or is it governed strictly by court procedures and bar guidelines?

Would it be a violation of bar ethics if an attorney used his or her wiles to knowingly manipulate an elderly judge, who might be borderline non compos mentis, to get a court order like that? Furthermore, wouldn't he or she be acting unethically if they even sought such a ruling, knowing it violates chain of custody?

Thanks again.

 

[Zigner]

You don't like Hillary, do you?

 

[Silverplum]

Of course records get ruined by flood, fire, tornado, and moths (or whatever bugs: I don't do bugs.)

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you for the reply.

Have you ever heard of a case where an attorney obtained a "special court order" to take sole custody of the evidence, in order to transport it out of state? From just a logical layman's viewpoint, and certainly not a scientific or legal one, I could conceive of this being done under extraordinary circumstances, maybe, if a crime lab technician were taken along to maintain the integrity and custody at all times. I can't conceive of any judge handing over sole custody of the evidence directly to the defense to transport it out of state, and to an expert witness the defense hadn't yet even retained no less. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's not a criminal court judge in this country, and there wouldn't have been even back in 1975, not even in the most rural backwoods jurisdiction, who would have flouted well established chain of custody procedures and rules like that.

Are there typically laws regarding chain of custody? Or is it governed strictly by court procedures and bar guidelines, which don't have the strength of law?

Would it be a violation of bar ethics if an attorney used his or her wiles to knowingly manipulate an elderly judge, who might be borderline non compos mentis, to get a court order like that? Furthermore, wouldn't he or she be acting unethically if he or she even sought such a ruling, knowing it would violate chain of custody?

Thanks again.

I graduated from high school in 1975 and I can tell you that things were VERY different back then. There wasn't nearly as much science involved in solving crimes and procedures were looser. Neither the internet nor cell phones existed and computers were programed by flow charts and punch cards. In addition, blood testing could only suggest who might possibly be involved in a crime...and rule out people who had the wrong blood type.

I can imagine a circumstance where a judge might have allowed the scenario that you are describing.

 

[seattlewag]

Of course records get ruined by flood, fire, tornado, and moths (or whatever bugs: I don't do bugs.)

I know that. I just find it strange that the court records, medical records and crucial evidence in the case itself, were all apparently lost at different times and from different locations.

I'm not raising this as an issue, I'm not even disputing it, I only included those details as background relative to this "special court order" for the defense to transport evidence out of state.

 

[Silverplum]

I graduated from high school in 1975 and I can tell you that things were VERY different back then. There wasn't nearly as much science involved in solving crimes and procedures were looser. Neither the internet nor cell phones existed and computers were programed by flow charts and punch cards. In addition, blood testing could only suggest who might possibly be involved in a crime...and rule out people who had the wrong blood type.

I can imagine a circumstance where a judge might have allowed the scenario that you are describing.

No faxes, either. Faxing was a huge game-changer.

(smooths lightly graying hair, remembers parents telling of 5-cent hamburgers)

 

[Silverplum]

Researcher: http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6352.html

One piece of information leads to another and another. Do that.

 

[seattlewag]

Researcher: http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6352.html

One piece of information leads to another and another. Do that.

Thanks, I haven't been at this journalism thing for all that long.

 

[Silverplum]

Thanks, I haven't been at this journalism thing for all that long.

You're welcome.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Oh.... this case. Well I've listened to Hillary's recorded statements about this and she sure does claim to literally deliver the underwear to the expert. She even describes the expert's lab (residence?) in detail. If an attorney had a Judge's court order allowing her to do that then she could do it. It would be a crazy thing for a judge to allow but if the state had a problem with the order, which they should, then they could legally challenge it. I don't know that State's laws at all much less back then but there is always a way to have judge's order challenged by a higher court. If it happened... it happened. There are all sorts of crazy stories from cases dating back that old.

The reality of it is that the issue with the evidence might not have even been what resulted in the favorable plea bargain. Honestly there is nothing surprising about a case like that getting resolved like that. There are so many details behind the scenes that can make or break a case. Also as much as I cannot stand Hillary, I would never fault a criminal defense attorney for doing everything legally and ethically possible to defend even the worst of clients. That is their job and the defendant's constitutional right.

However.... from hearing Hillary's other statements about the case though it does seem extremely hard to believe she in fact did have such an order. She says she had to fight the judge to even get permission to LOOK at the evidence. Yet he then lets her take possession of it? Also there are two pages of the case's docket sheet entry available online. Alot of it is very hard to read but from what is there I don't see any order allowing her to take possession of the evidence. Not every order gets reflected on a docket sheet though. I wouldn't put it past Hillary to be embellishing her involvement with the evidence. Its a little like her story about how she had to dodge sniper fire. The fact that she made that trip is factual. The sniper fire is a lie. Maybe that's what's happening here but good luck getting to the bottom of it. By now she's deleted all the emails, "can't recall" the details, and all the witnesses have mysteriously committed suicide.

 

[Silverplum]

"New to journalism," indeed. Good day, Sr. Quixote.

Mighty loud applause for CL!

 

[quincy]

Oh.... this case ...

Good investigative journalism there, CavemanLawyer. You should write a book or screen play.

Here are links to FactCheck.org and to Politifact.com's "truth-o-meter," on the 1975 rape case:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-to-be-relieved-rapist/

It is important to emphasize that Clinton represented her client (the defendant in the rape case) as most criminal defendants would want to be represented. Criminal defense attorneys do not have the luxury of picking the most desirable of clients - but the fact that the clients are undesirable should not reflect negatively on the criminal defense attorney. The defense attorneys are charged with doing a job and they do it to the best of their abilities.

Does anyone want fact checks now on any of the recent stories about Trump?

 

[Silverplum]

at Q !