The Importance and Relevance of Chain of Custody - Case Study Example

Chain of Custody Name: University: Date: The Importance and Relevance of Chain of Custody to Criminal Investigations and Judicial Outcomes Introduction Chain of Custody can be described as a procedure used to handle evidence through a series of inquiries. Therefore, a chain of custody is the documentation procedure performed for evidence in a sequential manner. As it will be evidenced in this case study, chain of custody is very important in the process of investigation since it ensures that the evidence presented in the court of law is accepted. Creation and maintenance of chain of custody connote that an in-depth log is preserved regarding the place where the investigators found the evidence as well as inputting everything that happens to the evidence into the log before the trial. The chain of custody normally starts with the experts investigating the crime scene or crime scene specialists. After the evidence has been found, a number of steps are taken to facilitate the documentation of the evidence found at the crime scene. Normally, this is achieved through notes and photographs taken at the time the first investigation was initiated. It is very important to establish a chain of custody during the authentication of evidence that would be used in the courtroom. Therefore, the chain of custody needs to justify the confiscation, storage, condition as well as transfer of the evidence. Besides that, the information of chain of custody is very crucial to the forensic examiner since it exhibits the source of the file, the creator of the file, and the equipment utilised to create the file. Furthermore, chain of custody is important to the process of investigation since it is the initial step during the authentication of video evidence and digital audio. The objective of this case study is to discuss the importance and relevance of chain of custody to criminal investigations and judicial outcomes drawing reference to the murder case of Pamela Lawrence and the Madrid Bomber case. Discussion According to Cruz-Cunha and Manuela (2014), chain of custody has turned out to be very important since evidence authenticity must be maintained in line with the condition that it was discovered in the crime scene until its presentation in the courtroom. The chain of custody scope involves every person that participate in the process of acquiring, gathering and analysing evidence, records of the time, and contextual information such as case labelling, laboratory and unit processing the evidence. (Prayudi & SN, 2015). On 23rd May 1994, Pamela Lawrence was murdered by an attacker in her shop and her husband found her body almost two hours after the attack. Evidence indicates that she had serious injuries on her head and passed away while being taken to the hospital. The autopsy report exhibited that Mrs Lawrence had suffered severe injuries on her head and her scalp had almost 12 cuts. The Chief Forensic Pathologist while using a dissecting microscope detected that the lacerations had some blue-green material, which the forensic chemist recognised as the orthopthalmic alkyd enamel paint (Corruption and Crime Commission, 2008). Besides that, a weird pattern of Mrs Lawrence’s injuries facilitated the identification of the instrument or weapon utilised to cause such injuries. Furthermore, the analysis of the blood pattern at the crime scene exhibited that the deceased was at first struck close to the shop entrance, and then she was struck again after being dragged to the rear. The analysis of the palm print and fingerprints that were found at the scene of crime failed to produce any match and there was no system for identification of the palm prints. According to Corruption and Crime Commission (2008), the forensic examination at the crime scene did not uncover any forensic connection between the suspect (Andrew Mallard) and the scene. Furthermore, the deceased blood was never ever found on the suspect’s possessions or clothes. After the police investigation, Andrew Mallard was charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2006, a new trial to the murder case was ordered after a successful appeal to the High Court of Australia, but due to law changes associated with the interviews’ admissibility that were not video-recorded, Andrew Mallard was set free, after 12 years in jail. After further investigations, it was established Mrs Lawrence was not killed by Andrew Mallard, but by Simon Rochford, who had already been convicted of murdering Brigitta Dickens, her girlfriend (Thomson, 2008). The quashing of Mr. Mallard after serving 12 years in jail proves that there was an issue of relevant information disclosure (Jones, 2010; Department of Justice Canada, 2011). The murder case of Mrs Lawrence demonstrates that forensic science plays a crucial role in facilitating the establishment of the crime element, identification of the suspect, determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. As posited by Cosic and Cosic (2012) it is the duty of the investigating officer to thoroughly look for possible evidence, which has a probative crime value. In the case of Mrs Lawrence, it appears that the investigating officers potentially contaminated the physical evidence at the crime scene during the gathering, storing and presentation at the courtroom. Without a doubt, the investigators failed to properly preserve evidence, thus, leading to the tampering of the evidence material. Because of lack of training and education, Palmiotto (2012) posit that the law enforces normally disturb the scene of the crime and destroy the crucial evidence that a trained Crime Scene Investigator could have collected it effectively with his skill and due diligence. Therefore, a chain of custody can be established accurately by communicating properly the information from the first individual at the scene of the crime to the crime scene investigators as well as police investigators. As evidenced in Mrs Lawrence murder case, failure to give much of significance to the chain of custody can result in misjudgement or conviction of an innocent person (Dinkar, 2015). The chain of custody as indicated by Petrucelli and Peters (2016) starts when the evidence has been collected, and preserving the chain until the evidence is presented in the courtroom. Clearly, the chain of custody guarantees a continuous responsibility bearing in mind that when a piece of evidence is mishandled it can be disregarded in the court of law or lead to the conviction of an innocent person. Evidence becomes useful in the courtroom if its transfer from the crime scene to the courtroom is in a way that is protected and approved ( (Schum, Tecuci, & Boicu, 2009; Evans & Stagner, 2003). Therefore, chain of custody as mentioned by Beckett (‎2013 ) is important because it assures legitimacy. On 11th March 2004, Madrid experienced a series of coordinated bomb attacks in four commuter trains resulting in the death of 191 persons and injured more than 1800 people (Prieto, et al., 2007). A forensic investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on a latent fingerprint picked from the bag that had detonating devices led to the identification of an American Muslim known as Brandon Mayfield from Oregon. Numerous fingerprint examiners from FBI autonomously determined that the fingerprint matched those of Mayfield. On the other hand, a forensic investigation by the Spanish authorities placed Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian national at the scene of crime (Kassin, Dror, & Kukucka, 2013). Therefore, confirmation bias was pointed out as the main factor that led erroneous identification. For this reason, the U.S. government formally apologised and paid a compensation fee of $2 million dollars. As pointed out by Hampikian, West, and Akselrod (2011) numerous forensic science evidence have been utilised to sentence innocent people wrongfully. Clearly, human cognition and other factors play a crucial role in forensic science and have facilitated the implementation and development of practical solutions so as improve the forensic laboratories’ effectiveness (Strom & Hickman, 2014). Cognitive insights as mentioned by Dror (2013) offer somewhat practical solutions that simply reduce bias by improving the mind independence of the examiners. The contribution of cognitive science to the forensic work is not only associated with fighting bias but also suggest how examiners’ work can be improved (Petherick, Turvey, & Ferguson, 2009). Dubord (2008) posits that the chain-of-custody is important because it helps in the verification of the submitted evidence to ensure it is free from alteration or tampering. In both cases, it is evident that the process of chain-of-custody was not applied; thus, leading to the conviction of innocent people. The rule of the chain-of-custody makes certain that the information presented by the investigators as evidence is in a similar state as when it was seized (Sanett, 2000; Brown, 2015. Basically, in the judicial process, the evidence is utilised with the objective of demonstrating the truth; therefore, they normally influence the case outcomes (Cardozo, 2009; Harvey, 2012). Still, evidence presentation as observed by Giova (2011) is an adversary process, where fairness is more preferred than efficiency. Conclusion In conclusion, this case study has demonstrated the importance and relevance of chain of custody to criminal investigations and judicial outcomes drawing reference to the murder case of Pamela Lawrence and the Madrid Bomber case. In both case studies, innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. This demonstrates that the documentation and testimony of the chain of custody that was presented by the investigators in both cases were flawed since it placed innocent people in the scene of the crime. If the investigators had correctly maintained the chain of custody, the whereabouts of the personal responsible for both crimes could have been determined. References Beckett, M. W. (‎2013 ). The Missing Link: A Framework for Enhancing the Handling of Evidence by Law Enforcement. The Journal of Law Enforcement, 3(2), 1-9. Brown, C. S. (2015). Investigating and Prosecuting Cyber Crime: Forensic Dependencies and Barriers to Justice. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9(1), 5–119. Cardozo, B. N. (2009). The Nature of the Judicial Process. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc. Corruption and Crime Commission. ( 2008). Report on the inquiry into alleged misconduct by public officers in connection with the investigation of the murder of Mrs Pamela Lawrence, the prosecution and appeals of Mr Andrew Mark Mallard, and other related matters. Western Australia. Corruption and Crime Commission, Perth, W.A. Cosic, J., & Cosic, Z. (2012). Chain of Custody and Life Cycle of Digital Evidence. Computer Technology and Application, 126-129. Cruz-Cunha, & Manuela, M. (2014). Handbook of Research on Digital Crime, Cyberspace Security, and Information Assurance. Hershey, PA : IGI Global. Department of Justice Canada. (2011). The Path to Justice: Preventing Wrongful Convictions. Toronto: FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee. Dinkar, V. (2015). Forensic scientific evidence: problems and pitfalls in India. International Journal of Forensic Science & Pathology, 3(2), 79-84. Dror, I. E. (2013). Practical Solutions to Cognitive and Human Factor Challenges in Forensic Science. Forensic Science Policy & Management, 4(3-4), 1–9. Dubord, P. (2008). Investigating Cybercrime. In J. J. Barbara, Handbook of Digital and Multimedia Forensic Evidence (pp. 77-89). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc. Evans, M. M., & Stagner, P. A. (2003). Maintaining the Chain of Custody Evidence Handling in Forensic Cases. AORN Journal, 78(4), 563-569. Giova, G. (2011). Improving Chain of Custody in Forensic Investigation of Electronic Digital Systems. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 11(1), 1-9. Hampikian, G., West, E., & Akselrod, O. (2011). The genetics of innocence: analysis of 194 U.S. DNA exonerations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 12, 97-120. Harvey, R. (2012). Preserving Digital Materials. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Jones, C. (2010, October 4). The Wronged Man Part Two - Transcript. Retrieved from Australian Story: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2007/s3029194.htm Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42–52. Palmiotto, M. J. (2012). Criminal Investigation (4th ed.). New Jersey : CRC Press. Petherick, W., Turvey, B. E., & Ferguson, C. E. (2009). Forensic Criminology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press. Petrucelli, J., & Peters, J. R. (2016). Preventing Fraud and Mismanagement in Government: Systems and Structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Prayudi, Y., & SN, A. (2015). Digital Chain of Custody: State of the Art. International Journal of Computer Applications, 114(5), 1-9. Prieto, J. L., Tortosa, C., Bedate, A., Segura, L., Abenza, J. M., Gante, M. C., . . . Perea, B. (2007). The 11 March 2004 Madrid terrorist attacks: the importance of the mortuary organisation for identification of victims. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 121, 517–522. Sanett, S. (2000). Authenticity as a requirement of preserving digital data and records. IASSIST Quarterly, 15-18. Schum, D., Tecuci, G., & Boicu, M. (2009). Analyzing Evidence and its Chain of Custody: A Mixed-Initiative Computational Approach. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol.22: 298-319, 2009., 22, 298-319. Strom, K. J., & Hickman, M. J. (2014). Forensic Science and the Administration of Justice: Critical Issues and Directions. London: SAGE Publications. Thomson, C. (2008, October 7). How the Mallard case unfolded. Retrieved from WAtoday.com.au : www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/how-the-mallard-case-unfolded-20081007-4vhk.html Read More