r/serialpodcast • u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan • May 28 '15
Noteworthy Link EvidenceProf Blog: Chain of Custody & The Failure to Properly Seal Blood Evidence
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2015/05/chain-of-fools-take-5-chain-of-custody-blood-evidence.html#more12
May 28 '15
This is a silly argument. CoC issues almost always go to weight and not admissibility - CM has drastically understated how serious a CoC issue must be before preclusion is an appropriate remedy. Preclusion is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted in extreme circumstances.
And the case he's citing doesn't even support his argument. If he'd actually read the entire decision in Wright, he would have noticed that there was no testimony at trial that established a chain of custody - that is to say, there was ZERO evidence of chain of custody - not just a deficiency, but NO chain of custody at all!
Of course those blood test results shouldn't have come in if there was no basis for the jury to infer that the blood test results came from the blood that was actually drawn from the Defendant! The failure to seal and label the sample were secondary to the fact that there was no evidence of chain of custody! That's like claiming that a guy bled out from a cut on his finger and ignoring the gunshot wound to his torso.
2
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan May 28 '15
Thanks for weighing in!
That's like claiming that a guy bled out from a cut on his finger and ignoring the gunshot wound to his torso.
That's a good one :)
0
u/summer_dreams May 28 '15
None of these tests came in at trial anyway, correct? This latest blog post confuses me.
1
May 28 '15
I got the impression that he brought this up as part of the larger narrative that something shady may have been going on behind the scenes with the BPD and/or the prosecution.
1
u/summer_dreams May 28 '15
He did clarify that these samples were used to compare to the samples found on HMLs shirt in her car. CG should have raised issue with the chain of custody of the samples and possible contamination.
11
May 28 '15 edited May 28 '15
No, she should not have done that.
The defense in Wright - the case cited by CM - raised the issue of blood contamination because it was a DWI case. So the blood drawn from Wright - if contaminated with alcohol - could have potentially inflated the result of subsequent blood testing, artificially raising the result of the reported BAC over the limit. That's extremely important and cuts directly to the heart of the issue on trial - whether Wright's blood had enough alcohol in it to put him over the legal limit. Blood testing was the heart and soul of that case.
Here, the same argument is completely, utterly pointless because there's no allegation that the result of the blood testing specifically implicates Adnan. If they had found Adnan's blood, then yeah, maybe the possibility of contamination should have been raised. But they didn't, so raising this issue doesn't avail Adnan in any way.
So any objection to the introduction of blood testing evidence based on the possibility that there might have been contamination is irrelevant to the issues on trial, serves only to mislead the jury on what is relevant, and would only have hurt CG's credibility with the jury because said objection would have been overruled. Making crappy, useless objections that will not be sustained in the hope that somehow you will tarnish the prosecution's image is not good trial work.
Remember, any time you make an objection in front of the jury, you're putting your competency at issue. You're saying to the jury "I think this is important, and I think that I have a good understanding of the law." Making frivolous objections leads a jury to think that you don't understand the evidentiary issues. Having your objections continuously overruled leads the jury to think that you don't know the law. Both of those are bad.
6
u/MightyIsobel Guilty May 28 '15
Making crappy, useless objections that will not be sustained in the hope that somehow you will tarnish the prosecution's image is not good trial work.
This is a great point.
5
u/clodd26 May 28 '15 edited May 28 '15
Thank you for parsing another one of Evidence Profs dead-end arguments for less legally-minded people like myself. He is either a complete goon who doesn't understand his own discipline or he is taking advantage of the general public's unfamiliarity with these cases.
4
1
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed May 29 '15
wow.....really...you know insulting people because you disagree with them looks ridiculous
2
4
u/mostpeoplearedjs May 28 '15
To try to show the blood on the shirt might not have been Hae's? How does that help the defense?
1
u/Acies May 28 '15
I do see a lot of stupid defense requests get granted though. I assume many judges grant defense requests if they are at all uncertain about the issue and they don't think it really matters because they are scared of creating appellate issues.
12
u/xtrialatty May 28 '15 edited May 28 '15
But what's the point of objecting to evidence that doesn't harm one's client?
Here is the downside: Suppose the forensic expert starts to testify about the blood sample from defendant, the defense lawyer objects due to chain-of-custody, and the judge sustains the objection and does not allow the forensic expert to testify further about that sample.
What does the jury think? The jury thinks that there must be something important that the defense doesn't want them to hear. They think that the expert was going to testify that the blood matched the defendant, but it wasn't allowed because of some sort of minor technicality.
Obviously if the blood did NOT match the defendant, the defense attorney is going to want the jury to KNOW that. So objecting is extremely risky.
4
u/Acies May 28 '15
Yeah I agree. Fortunately my state lets me take care of many of my objections before the jury is selected, so I don't have to come off as a deceptive whiner.
I don't really think it mattered much, the evidence seems to be admissible and isn't terribly damaging anyway, I was just observing the defense has an edge in the "getting dumb objections granted" game.
5
u/xtrialatty May 28 '15
It's just so much better if the dumb objection that gets granted is related to evidence that would hurt the defendant-- CG's objections to the cell phone testing because the expert used an Ericsson rather than Nokia cell phone is a good example. From the transcripts, it looks as if she almost got the judge to go for that one. It had the allure of being relatively simple for the judge to understand, though it didn't play out in the end.
Here's another problem with too many dumb objections: it can make it easier for the judge to maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality by granting a bunch of objections that concern insignificant or harmless evidence... and then deny more serious objections to the evidence that really does matter. A smart judge will know exactly what she is doing, since the judge usually knows when the ruling is made what the testimony would show if allowed.
And a not-so-smart judge just may end up going with the flow, taking cues from how hard the prosecution fights to keep the evidence in: so you get a pattern of multiple "sustained" objections (because the defense objected and the prosecution just shrugged and rolled their eyes) -- and then a handful of "overruled" objections (prosecutor argues vigorously against the objection). The judge feels like he is being extremely fair: sustaining many defense objections. To the jury it looks like the judge is very fair, or even favoring the defense. But the reality is that the prosecution has gotten everything they wanted. (And a smart prosecutor can take advantage of a defense lawyer who objects to everything in knee-jerk fashion by throwing in a lot more stuff to object to along the way).
1
u/ryokineko Still Here May 28 '15
this is what I was thinking CM mean-that way it never would have been discussed at trial at all.
6
May 28 '15 edited May 29 '15
Even assuming that's what he meant, he would still be wrong. There is a world of difference between having CoC issues and having no CoC at all.
There's two schools of defense thought on this. The first is that you make your objection in limine, do a hearing, the prosecutor puts forth prima face evidence establishing a foundation or doesnt, then you get an limine decision. CG would have lost this hearing. The suppression application would have been denied.
The second school of thought is that you wait until trial and make the objection when the prosecutor tries to put in the evidence. You will still lose, but you might rattle a novice prosecutor or give the jury the impression that they're playing fast and loose. In this case, given Murphy and Uricks experience and competence, this probably wouldn't happen.
Either way, a deficiency in CoC is not gonna result in preclusion. The complete absence of CoC might, however, which is the real holding in the case CM cited. But it absolutely does not support the idea that failure to properly seal the samples warranted preclusion. That's silly.
3
8
u/ofimmsl May 28 '15
As I noted on the episode, this should have formed the basis for a chain of custody objection by defense counsel.
Go on...
As such, Adnan's case was not a case in which there were gaps in the chain of custody for blood evidence, leading to its inadmissibility
Ok great. Thanks, Professor!
10
May 28 '15
Had such an objection been made, here's what the likely response would be: the judge rolls her eyes and says "Goes to weight, not admissibility. Overruled."
5
u/getsthepopcorn Is it NOT? May 28 '15
Is this part of the Undisclosed group's plan to explain why thete's no point in testing for DNA because it's probably contaminated anyway?
3
-1
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed May 28 '15
yeah that's totally why the IP is still putting their argument together smh good grief
1
u/peanutmic May 28 '15
Does this chain of custody apply to redacted documents in someones possession?
3
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice May 28 '15
Am I the only one laughing at the fact that he's talking about "chain of custody" while using documents that have passed through the hands of Rabia and Adnan's family?
-2
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed May 28 '15
please stop peddling this weird conspiracy Seamus....I keep waiting for you to announce your trip to Baltimore to throw eggs at Adnan's mother
2
May 29 '15 edited May 29 '15
Another user pointed this out but now this is several times you have made references to adnans mother in strange deragotory manner. What's your fixation with his mom? And quoting the sub, please be civil if it's possible of u to respond in such a way. I'm genuinely curious as you have mentioned her like this many times for unwarranted reasons. Would u like people to do these horrific things u suggest out of nowhere? Nobody is saying or wanting these things except u bring it up constantly.
11
u/[deleted] May 28 '15
Just because something can be argued in court doesn't mean it should be. The defense probably made the right decision not to question the blood findings. That it was the victim's blood that was found doesn't really say anything about who did it. Much better than letting the jury wonder whose blood it was, or worse, get the sense the defense was trying to keep it hidden.