Text 6980, 99 rader
Skriven 2008-07-16 16:09:52 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
   Kommentar till text 6977 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
Ärende: The Black Experience
============================
Hi BOb,

Bob Klahn wrote in a message to Richard Webb:

IN pursuit of brevity, for those just popping in on this, we're talking chain
of custody of evidence in criminal cases and procedures ... BK>  In this case,
you give the evidence to the other side, and they 
BK> give you a receipt. The police did not give the evidence to OJ's 
BK> lawyers until well after the material could have been tainted.  From
BK> that point of view "chain of custody" documentation would be
BK> meaningless.

yEp, and a lot of that couldn't be proven.  IF you're jOhny Cochrane all you
have to do is cast doubt, and anything which casts that doubt works.

 RW> in the last 30 years you know that when the officer
 RW> arresting you reads you that little card which has the
 RW> patter we all know from TV cop shows so well you must sign
 RW> the card afterword. THIs indicates that you *were* told.

BK>  I have never been arrested, but I was questioned as a potential 
BK> witness, in the Air Force. They Mirandized every single witness 
BK> they talked to.

OF course, just in case questioning you leads down the road to arrest, then the
process has already been in place. IF the information acquired by questioning
you leads to yoru arrest your lawyers can't come back and say "he wasn't
informed of his constitutional rights ladies and gentlemen of the jury and your
honor sir." IF they can, goodbye case.

 RW> IF they video or audiotape your interview chances are good
 RW> the Miranda patter will be repeated.  even though you
 RW> signed the card, the I's are dotted, t's crossed.  YOu were
 RW> properly mirandized.

BK>  Only no one is normally out there videotaping the collection of 
BK> the evidence.

Ah but remember the murders of the two girls in Ada Oklahoma a few years ago? 
The would-be pro baseball player was charged and convicted. sOme videotaping
going on in that case.  WIlliams, the accused fomer minor leaguer was
eventually exonerated and freed from his death row sentence. WAs reading a book
on that one recently.

 <snippage>

 RW> AGain I have my doubts that actually happened in this case,
 RW> but that's why we have such provisions as documented proven
 RW> chain of custody, etc. YOu don't follow the rules, even the
 RW> guy you're sure did the dirty deed's gonna walk, because
 RW> you didn't follow the rules.

BK>  Yet it should be necessary to show how the failure to follow the 
BK> rules can change the outcome. If you don't have a search
BK>  warrant, the evidence can still be used if discovery was
BK>  inevitable. Like you have a basement full of pot, and the police 
BK> come in looking for a run away teen. They don't have a search 
BK> warrant, but the 'exigent circumstance' regarding a runaway teen 
BK> justifies the entry, and the pot would have been inevitably 
BK> discovered if they got a search warrant to look for the teen.  Which
BK> they would have if they didn't fear for the teen's safety. 

Agreed, in plain view, etc.  THat one's made many a good case.

BK>  When Furhman entered OJ's property without a warrant, he claimed 
BK> he did it to protect evidence, IIRC. I would justify the entry  on
BK> the basis that they expected to find OJ's dead body.
BK>  Murder/suicide is common in such cases.

THere you have it, the crux of the biscuit as it were.  furhman used the wrong
argument for entering the sImpson property, opening the door for the defense. 
Had he used the arguments you state above the defense wouldn't have been able
to widen the gap, and argue all over the place regarding chain of custody
issues.  IT's always the little details that reach out to bite you hardest.
<snip again>

 RW> Many jurists will tell you
 RW> that the thorny part of all these protections is that every
 RW> now and then they allow the guilty to get off.  O.J. was
 RW> one of those instances.

BK>  As I said, I believe the decisive testimony was Fong saying the 
BK> collection of the evidence was not up to standard, they didn't 
BK> sterilize the instruments between samples. Which means you could 
BK> cross contaminate the samples. The weakness in that arguement is  at
BK> least the preceeding sample had to be OJ's blood for the  succeeding
BK> sample to test out as OJ's blood. Which still leaves  OJ's blood at
BK> the scene of the crime.

yES that it was, and from the get-go, thanks to furhman using the wrong
argument for entering the accused's property in the first place, you open the
door for the defense. AGain why often when just being questioned you're
presented with your Miranda rights before the questions begin. tHe I's must be
dotted and T's crossed.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS       (1:116/901)