Please Help Asap As The Trial Is Going On Right Now!

What is the name of your state? Florida

I posted in another link but haven't received any responses.

This is a question of RESPONSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL.

PLEASE HELP!

During a vehicular manslaughter trial, the blood evidence was released by the state to an independent laboratory chosen by the defense. When it returned to the courts, the judge declared it to have lost integrity and wouldn't allow the results (the packaging wasn't up to standards).
The defense was reprimanded for this. The defense asked for a mistrial and the judge rejected it.
Who's responsibility was it to maintain the integrity of this evidence?
Shouldn't the state have approved of this lab and/or given them instructions as to how to handle this evidence?
So the prosecution got their lab to test the blood but the defense was denied their own testing.
Is this grounds for a mistrial? If not, grounds for an appeal after the trial?

adviceseeker222 said:

...

The defense was reprimanded for this. The defense asked for a mistrial and the judge rejected it.
....

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the defense screwed up and then the defense moved for a mistrial based on its own screwup?

I am not real clear on what you think the problem is.

seniorjudge said:

Are you saying that the defense screwed up and then the defense moved for a mistrial based on its own screwup?

I am not real clear on what you think the problem is.

Click to expand...

The Defense gave the name of a Lab for the blood analysis and that lab didn't follow proper handling procedures, as a result the Judge won't allow that Lab's results into evidence. The Defense asked for a mistrial but the Judge said no. OP wants to know if this would be cause for a MT or for an appeal.

Thanks so much for answering

The defense was granted the right to have the blood tested by an independent lab.

At that point, the blood evidence was still in the custody of the state.

The state then mailed the blood evidence to the independent lab that the defense chose.

When it returned to the court, the judge deemed it inadmissable based on the loss of integrity.

My question is, is the state responsible for maintaining the integrity of the evidence?


What if the defense chose to send the evidence to a group of clowns to test? Would the state have released this evidence to just anyone? Should there have been an approval of the lab before the state released it? Should the state have given the lab the protocol to follow?

The judge is blaming the defense.

adviceseeker222 said:

The defense was granted the right to have the blood tested by an independent lab.

At that point, the blood evidence was still in the custody of the state.

The state then mailed the blood evidence to the independent lab that the defense chose.

When it returned to the court, the judge deemed it inadmissable based on the loss of integrity.

My question is, is the state responsible for maintaining the integrity of the evidence?


What if the defense chose to send the evidence to a group of clowns to test? Would the state have released this evidence to just anyone? Should there have been an approval of the lab before the state released it? Should the state have given the lab the protocol to follow?

The judge is blaming the defense.

Click to expand...

The Defense was responsible to choose a QUALIFIED Lab that could properly handle evidence. If the Lab was not able to follow these procedures then that is the defenses problem for not investigating the Lab before choosing it.

Look at it this way, adviceseeker: if it did justify a mistrial or appeal, this would probably become a pretty common defense strategy.

If the Lab was not able to follow these procedures

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be the state that dictates the procedure?


If the state wanted it handled a specific way, should they have notified the lab of that?

Clt747 said:

Look at it this way, adviceseeker: if it did justify a mistrial or appeal, this would probably become a pretty common defense strategy.

Click to expand...

Yeah...Most of the attorneys in the country would send the blood to "Big Bob's Discount Bodily Fluid Analysis".

adviceseeker222 said:

Wouldn't it be the state that dictates the procedure?


If the state wanted it handled a specific way, should they have notified the lab of that?

Click to expand...

It's the LAW that dictates procedure.

Thank you for your help on this matter.


It may be helpful for you to know that the judge is favoring the prosecution on everything. It's obvious to everyone in the courtroom.

I think I should clear up as to what the reason was that the judge ruled this evidence inadmissible.

The blood kit came back intact but the packaging was different.

I don't know what the procedure is for these labs when testing evidence but it seemed unfair that this evidence should be thrown out.

The blood evidence was tested by the state twice and came back with 2 different readings.

The defense believed that the blood testing is not reliable therefore requesting a test of their own.

Is possible that the judge got the blood results of this independent lab and didn't like the results therefore wants them inadmissible?

Also, is it possible for the defense to get the results of this independent lab even though it was thrown out?
It might make a difference as to whether or not the defense should fight to keep this evidence admissible.
Is it even possible to fight to keep this evidence admissible?

Sorry for all of the questions. I'm new to the law.

Well, I'm assuming the results of the defense tests were different from the state's...? And helpful to the defense...?

Because that's the only way it makes a difference.

If the judge is rejecting defense evidence (that's helpful to the defense), that's always grounds for appeal. Whether the appeals court will uphold the trial court's decision, I couldn't tell you.

Your version of what happened - that the evidence itself came back in a different package - doesn't sound like a big deal to me.

If the lab is reputable, and they followed whatever professional standards are applicable to their industry, the results ought to be admissible, imo.

I don't see what the package has to do with anything.

At this point there's nothing the trial atty can do, however, except make sure to do everything possible to make sure the record's preserved for appeal.

The problem doesn't make sense.

Normally, the defense's expert (Criminologist) who tested the blood testifies as to the BAC or drug content.
The Criminologist can be cross-examined as to the procedures s/he followed, as well as to whether the lab followed proper procedures in testing and handling evidence (as well as certification of the lab).

Both Criminologists will testify and can comment on problems re the other's testing and their results.

I've never heard of blood evidence mailed to the court by the defense.

I've seen defense experts testify and evidence submitted by the defense (it's the testimony of the criminologists, laying the foundation for the lab report which is entered into evidence - you don't really need the actual blood sample).

I don't believe you're defining the problem correctly.
The Judge is not preventing the scientist (who did the actual test) from testifying.
Put the scientist/criminologist on the stand.

ps: Blood samples for BAC do deteriorate over time; if defense didn't ask for a court order for a split when the sample was fresh, that's the defense's fault.
That may be what the Judge has found.