Chain of Custody Issues - Essay Example

Chain of Custody Name: Institution: For a case to be deemed effective in a court of law, the evidence is brought to the court must be handled in a careful manner in order to prevent its tampering. It is for this reason that the chain of custody is needed. A chain of custody shows the chronological documentation of evidence. Besides establishing a chronological order, a chain of custody can also be made in a logical procedure especially in cases where the evidence is fungible. The law does not allow judges and jurors from conducting investigations of a certain case. It is for this reason that in case of litigation, the judges and jurors have to be impartial to the evidence on record. This is because the litigants stake everything in the hope that the evidence will favor them justly in case of a case. Uncompromised evidence is subject to destroying the reputation of the judicial system. It is for this reason that this essay intends to discuss the importance and relevance of chain of custody to criminal investigations and judicial outcomes as it tries to draw reference to cases such as The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson and the people vs. Fulton case to illustrate and support contentions in the way investigations were handled. It is just a little over twenty years since the Orenthal James Simpson vs. the people of California. What purported to be a murder trial shed light into how forensic and gathering of evidence can be flawed. The investigations were carried out by the Los Angeles Police Department. It was a highly publicized trial that provided a blueprint to the men in blue in what not to do during investigations of a certain case. The trial was on O.J Simpson murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson as well as her friend Ronald Goldman (Cotterill, 2001). The defendant’s attorney destroyed the case presented before the court by the prosecution by showing how the Los Angeles Police Department handled the evidence. The ways in which the chain of custody was compromised by the officers who were handling the evidence are: the exhibit officers did not correctly check the items to be submitted for testing (Skitka & Houston, 2001). This can be attributed by the fact that majority of blood swabs had not gone through testing since they arrived late. Only a few swabs had arrived for testing. This showed a flawed chain of custody since any of the brought but not tested evidence may have been planted to compromise the case. Secondly, the blood samples that were taken from Orenthal James Simpson for comparison was in the hands of the police officers for a long time before it was passed to the chain of custody (Felman, 1997).. This was unlike the protocol where the blood sample evidence was to be handed over immediately. Thirdly, items that were photographed had not been labeled (Hastie & Pennington, 1996). Pieces of evidence were put together instead of separately, hence risking contamination of the evidence. This was shown by how wet items were packaged instead of letting them to dry hence letting critical evidence to slip by. Fourthly, the officers did not collect crucial evidence; such as Nicole Brown’s fingerprint that was at the gateway. This evidence was not collected or rather secured showing how the critical evidence was compromised. According to Baden & Roach (2002),the fingerprint later got destroyed without prior collection; and finally, Orenthal James Simpson’s bronco seemed to have been entered two times without authorization while it was parked in the impound yard. A second case study in which the evidence was flawed or the case of custody was compromised is the people vs. Dion Ronnel Fulton. It was alleged that Dion Fulton had raped his step sister who was 14 years old. He was convicted of rape and sexually promiscuous conduct and later sentenced to eight years in prison. He appealed against the charges. Among the motions on which the defendant appealed was based on grounds of flawed evidence handling. The chain of custody issues that were raised by the defendant were due to the DNA where concerns of how the court did err by having denied his objection to the evidence on grounds of chain of custody. Additionally, he contended on how the court erred when it rejected his instruction proposal to the jury on the chain of custody (Nicholson, 2012 May 18). It was alleged that Nurse Sheridan Miyamoto performed examination on the rape victim on July 16th 2008 at 2:30 a.m. she took swabs from cervix, vagina and perineum. She placed the swabs in envelopes after drying them. In addition, she took a sample of pubic hair and placed it in different envelopes. The outer clothing and the victim’s underwear were also taken and sealed in different box. The evidence was handed to crime lab in sealed condition(Nicholson, 2012 May 18). Anomalies arose when Herbert, a criminalist broke the seal on 2008 0ctober 17th. He performed tests on the swabs and returned each on its own envelope but said he wasn’t sure whether he sealed(Nicholson, 2012 May 18). Secondly, a criminalist called Kristie Abbot opened the seal on 1st September 2009 where she retested the evidence and put the items back to the envelope but didn’t seal it since she wanted to do additional testing(Nicholson, 2012 May 18). From the defendant, Herbert broke the seal on 17th October 2008 and tasted the contents. He however tested from a different area other than the intended workplace. He again tested the samples of blood from the defendant and the victim but did not record whether the kit of the suspect was sealed(Nicholson, 2012 May 18). On the other hand, Abbott opened the suspect kit on 9th September 2009. She tested the contents but didn’t testify whether the kit was sealed when she received it(Nicholson, 2012 May 18). The defendant claimed that the DNA evidence that was stored and subsequently managed may have been altered substituted or tampered showing hence leading to doubt. The above case study brings into perspective the need of a credible chain of custody. It is important for a just and unbiased judicial ruling. The importance of chain of custody in criminal investigations and judicial outcomes is: A chain of custody is important for documentation (Evans & Stagner, 2003). Since the process of chain of custody always begins with investigation of the crime scene by specialists, steps have to be followed to document the evidence found. Considering the OJ Simpson murder investigation, the documentation was compromised since blood was found on socks two months after the crime yet no one noticed. This led to the prosecution having a weak case against the suspect. Secondly, a chain of custody is also important to ensure there is no contamination of the evidence (Giannelli, 1982). After documentation of a critical item that can be used as strong evidence, collection follows. For example in the collection of a blood sample, a sterile swab is used. The blood should be touched with the sterile swab in order to prevent contamination. Gloves are also needed in order not to contaminate the swab with your DNA. As a cardinal rule, gloves must be worn in a crime scene in order to prevent contamination of the evidence (Rutty, Hopwood & Tucker, 2003). . What jeopardized the case against O.J Simpson was allegation that a detective took sample of blood from Simpson and carried it in his pocket and later took it back to the crime scene. It was suggested by the defense that the blood was brought back to plant evidence. It set precedence to today’s rules where detectives are not allowed to go back to crime scenes while carrying evidence. A chain of custody is also important in order to ensure that the evidence is properly handled Giannelli, 1982). This is to avoid any unscrupulous or biasness situations that may occur thereby leading to skewed judicial outcomes. In the case of O.J Simpson and Dion Fulton, the forensic investigators handled the evidences in an unprofessional manner leading to weak cases against the defendants. For O.J Simpson, the evidence was placed in a hot van that led to subsequent tampering of the evidence. In Dion Fulton, the investigators left the envelopes and suspects kits open. Both cases show how important it is for proper document handling in order to ensure a balanced and objective approach towards crime scenes. References Baden, M. M., & Roach, M. (2002). Dead reckoning: The new science of catching killers. Arrow. Cotterill, J. (2001). Domestic discord, rocky relationships: semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the OJ Simpson trial. Discourse & Society, 12(3), 291-312. Evans, M. M., & Stagner, P. A. (2003). Maintaining the chain of custody evidence handling in forensic cases. AORN journal, 78(4), 563-569. Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305-326. Felman, S. (1997). Forms of Judicial Blindness, or the Evidence of What Cannot Be Seen: Traumatic Narratives and Legal Repetitions in the OJ Simpson Case and in Tolstoy's" The Kreutzer Sonata". Critical Inquiry, 23(4), 738-788. Giannelli, P. C. (1982). Chain of custody and the handling of real evidence. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 20, 527. Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1996). OJ Simpson Stories: Behavioral Scientists' Reflections on the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, The. U. Colo. l. reV., 67, 957. Higginbotham, P. E. (1977). Continuing the Dialogue: Civil Juries and the Allocation of Judicial Power. Tex. L. Rev., 56, 47. Nicholson. ( 2012,May 18). People v. Fulton. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1601321.html Rutty, G. N., Hopwood, A., & Tucker, V. (2003). The effectiveness of protective clothing in the reduction of potential DNA contamination of the scene of crime. International journal of legal medicine, 117(3), 170-174. Read More