The Role of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Role of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 36 3 The Role of Evidence in Criminal Investigations distribute or post, copy, not Do Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. Objectives After reading this chapter you will be able to • Discuss the investigation of the • Explain the various levels or • Discuss reasons for the hearsay death of Caylee Anthony. Identify standards of proof rule and the exceptions to it the major evidence in the case and the probable reasons why • Compare direct evidence with • Compare the role of lay Casey Anthony was found not indirect evidence and give an witnesses with expert witnesses guilty in the trial example of each • Provide examples of corpus • Differentiate between judicial • Identify the various forms of delicti evidence, corroborative evidence and extrajudicial circumstantial evidence evidence, cumulative evidence, evidence, as well as exculpatory associative evidence, • Define testimonial evidence, evidence and inculpatory identification evidence, and real evidence, documentary evidence behavioral evidence evidence, and demonstrative evidence distribute From the CASE FILE The Death of Caylee Anthony or On June 15, 2008, Casey Anthony, twenty-two, had a brought her home. Casey explained to her mother that huge argument with her mother Cindy Anthony. Cindy that she actually left Caylee with Fernandez-Gonzalez discovered a photograph of Casey at a “no-clothes in Orlando on June 16 and that Gonzalez kidnapped party” and was not happy about it. Cindy not only had Caylee. Casey told her mother that she had not seen concerns about the behavior of her daughter butpost, also Caylee since then. about the welfare of two-year-old Caylee, Casey’s daughter and Cindy’s granddaughter. Cindy told Casey On July 15, 2008, Cindy called the police to report she was unfit to be a parent and threatened to get Caylee was missing. Investigators questioned Casey. custody of Caylee. Casey lived with her parents, Cindy She told them a similar story to what she told and George, in Orlando, but for everyone involved, her mother earlier: Caylee was kidnapped by her things were intolerable. The next day, June 16, Casey babysitter, Fernandez-Gonzalez. She told investigators packed up and left the housecopy, with Caylee. She said that she left Caylee with the babysitter when she went they were going to Tampa and that she was going to to work at Universal Studios. She said that she did not get her old job back at Universal Studios. During the tell the police about Caylee earlier because she was next thirty-one days, Cindy called Casey numerous too afraid. Upon checking for a “Zenaida Fernandez- times to see how Caylee was doing. Every time she Gonzalez,” investigators discovered that there was not no such person. Casey had lied. After Casey showed called, Casey told her mother that Caylee was with the babysitter, Zenaida “Zanny” Fernandez-Gonzalez. investigators around the Universal Studios theme park, they discovered that she did not actually work there. On July 13, 2008, Cindy and George received a letter She had worked there two years ago, but not recently. Doin the mail informing them that Casey’s car had been Another lie. Casey was arrested on July 16, 2008, for towed and was available for pickup at a particular the neglect of a child, providing false statements in a tow lot. George went to get the car. In the car he criminal investigation, and obstruction of a criminal found Casey’s purse and Caylee’s car seat and toys. investigation. Investigators wondered what else she Reportedly, he also noticed a strong odor coming from was lying about. She was released from jail on the trunk. Now Cindy was even more concerned. She August 21 but was arrested and returned to jail on eventually found Casey at her boyfriend’s house and August 29 for check and credit card fraud. Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 38 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION Initially the investigation focused on trying to find blanket that was recovered with Caylee’s remains also Caylee, although investigators were not optimistic matched Caylee’s bedding at her grandparent’s house. that they would find her alive. When Casey’s car was In June 2011, three years after the disappearance of examined, a cadaver dog alerted to decomposition Caylee, the trial of Casey Anthony began. She was in the trunk of the vehicle. Insects and maggots charged with first degree murder, aggravated child commonly associated with dead bodies were also abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child. In a found in the trunk. The examination also revealed a nutshell, the prosecution’s theory was that Casey was trace of chloroform in the trunk, and investigators a party girl and no longer wanted the responsibilities recovered a hair that was microscopically similar to of being a parent. She used chloroform to incapacitate Caylee’s hair (a sample of which was obtained from Caylee and then used duct tape to suffocate her. Her a hairbrush). Analyses revealed that the hair had body was kept in the trunk of her vehicle. The Internet certain characteristics that indicated that it came search for chloroform showed premeditation. from a dead body. Computers in the Anthony house were seized and analyzed. On one of the computers Casey’s lawyers had a different explanation for the investigators found Google searches for the term the disappearance and death of Caylee, and they chloroform made in March 2008. Upon checking the had alternative explanations for the prosecution’s whereabouts and activities of Casey from June 16, evidence. According to the defense, Caylee actually 2008, to July 15, 2008, they did not find much except drowned in the family pool on June 16, 2008, and that on July 2, Casey got a tattoo that read “Bella Casey’s dad helped cover up the death so that Casey Vita”—“beautiful life” in Italian. would not be charged with child neglect. Caylee’s death was not the result of adistribute murder; it was a tragic On December 11, 2008, a meter reader found accident and then, unwisely, covered up to avoid skeletonized human remains in a wooded area near police scrutiny. The attorneys further explained that the Anthony house; the remains were determined to Casey had an abusiveor childhood and was sexually be those of Caylee Anthony. Duct tape was found in abused by her father and her brother, so she got the hair and around the skull. Investigators reasoned used to disguising and hiding her emotional pain. that Caylee died from suffocation as a result of the As for the evidence, through expert testimony the duct tape being placed over her nose and mouth. Duct defense argued that odor analysis of the trunk was tape that was the same as that found with Caylee not scientific and was not accepted by the scientific was found in her grandparent’s garage. A laundry bag post,community. A primary compound found in human that was the same type and brand as one found with decomposition was not present in the trunk. The guts Caylee’s remains was found in the Anthony house. A of the maggots found in the trunk were not analyzed copy, not Do PHOTO 3.1–3.2: When she was being investigated as a suspect in the disappearance and death of her daughter, Casey Anthony provided several stories to investigators about her activities and the whereabouts of Caylee. These stories were shown to be false, and this, along with other evidence in the case, led many people to think Casey was responsible for Caylee’s murder. Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. Chapter 3 • The Role of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 39 for DNA; therefore, it was not possible to determine had no connection to or role in her death. The Google what they had consumed, if human remains or searches for chloroform were not conducted by Casey other organic material, such as food or excrement. but by her mother who was actually searching for According to the defense, the source and reason chlorophyll and then got sidetracked and searched for for the presence of chloroform in the trunk was not chloroform as well. adequately specified and did not prove anything. The hair in the trunk was presumed to be Caylee’s, but After thirty-three days of testimony, on July 5, 2011, this was not proven with certainty. Caylee’s body the jury found Casey not guilty of first degree murder, was never in the trunk, it had nothing to do with her child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child. accidental death. The duct tape found on Caylee’s She was only found guilty of four counts of providing skull was simply trash recovered with the body; it false information in a criminal investigation and check forgery. Casey did not testify at the trial. Case Considerations and Points for Discussion • Two fundamental questions are present in homicide may have helped to establish that Caylee was investigations and trials: (1) Did a homicide occur? murdered and that Casey committed the murder? and (2) if a homicide occurred, did the suspect/ defendant commit the homicide? What evidence • Many people think that Casey actually killed Caylee. in the Caylee Anthony investigation suggested What do you think? Was Casey found not guilty that a homicide actually occurred? What evidence because she diddistribute not do it, or was she found not suggested that Casey Anthony committed the guilty for some other reason? Explain.
Recommended publications
  • Federal Rules of Evidence: 801-03, 901
    FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: 801-03, 901 Rule 801. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion. (b) Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if-- (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross- examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose Or Destroy Evidence with Apparent Exculpatory
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 48 Issue 2 Article 6 2000 Here Today, Gone Tomorrow - Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose or Destroy Evidence with Apparent Exculpatory Elizabeth A. Bawden Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Elizabeth A. Bawden, Here Today, Gone Tomorrow - Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose or Destroy Evidence with Apparent Exculpatory, 48 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2000) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol48/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HERE TODAY, GONE TOMORROW - THREE COMMON MISTAKES COURTS MAKE WHEN POLICE LOSE OR DESTROY EVIDENCE WITH APPARENT EXCULPATORY VALUE ELIZABETH A. BAWDEN1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. CALIFORNIA V. TROMBETTA................................................... 338 III. ARIZONA V. YOUNGBLOOD..................................................... 339 IV. APPLICATION OF TROMBETTA ............................................... 341 V. APPLICATION OF YOUNGBLOOD............................................ 342 VI. WHAT CONSTITUTES APPARENT EXCULPATORY
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 609: Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of a Crime
    RULE 609: IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION OF A CRIME Jessica Smith, UNC School of Government (Feb. 2013). Contents I. Generally .........................................................................................................................1 II. For Impeachment Only. ...................................................................................................2 III. Relevant Prior Convictions. .............................................................................................2 A. Rule Only Applies to Certain Classes of Convictions .............................................2 B. Out-of-State Convictions ........................................................................................3 C. Prayer for Judgment Continued (PJC) ...................................................................3 D. No Contest Pleas ...................................................................................................3 E. Charges Absent Convictions ..................................................................................3 F. Effect of Appeal .....................................................................................................3 G. Reversed Convictions ............................................................................................3 H. Pardoned Offenses ................................................................................................3 I. Juvenile Adjudications ...........................................................................................3 J. Age
    [Show full text]
  • Video Evidence a Primer for Prosecutors
    Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Video Evidence A Primer for Prosecutors Even ten years ago, it was rare for a court case to feature video evidence, besides a defendant’s statement. Today, with the increasing use of security cameras by businesses and homeowners, patrol-car dashboard and body-worn cameras by law enforcement, and smartphones and tablet cameras by the general public, it is becoming unusual to see a court case that does not include video evidence. In fact, some estimate that video evidence is involved in about 80 percent of crimes.1 Not surprisingly, this staggering abundance of video brings with it both opportunities and challenges. Two such challenges are dealing with the wide variety of video formats, each with its own proprietary characteristics and requirements, and handling the large file sizes of video evidence. Given these obstacles, the transfer, storage, redaction, disclosure, and preparation of video evidence for evidentiary purposes can stretch the personnel and equipment resources of even the best-funded prosecutor’s office. This primer provides guidance for managing video evidence in the office and suggests steps to take to ensure that this evidence is admissible in court. Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative October 2016 Introduction The opportunities inherent in video evidence cannot be overlooked. It is prosecutors who are charged with presenting evidence to a jury. Today, juries expect video to be presented to them in every case, whether it exists or not.2 As a result, prosecutors must have the resources and technological skill to seamlessly present it in court. Ideally, prosecutors’ offices could form specially trained litigation support units, which manage all video evidence from the beginning of the criminal process through trial preparation and the appellate process.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuring Pre-Plea Criminal Discovery Daniel S
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 107 | Issue 1 Article 1 Winter 2017 Structuring Pre-Plea Criminal Discovery Daniel S. McConkie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Recommended Citation Daniel S. McConkie, Structuring Pre-Plea Criminal Discovery, 107 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2017). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol107/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. 1. MCCONKIE 4/6/2017 7:01 PM 0091-4169/17/10701-0001 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 107, No. 1 Copyright © 2017 by Daniel S. McConkie Printed in U.S.A. CRIMINAL LAW STRUCTURING PRE-PLEA CRIMINAL DISCOVERY DANIEL S. MCCONKIE* Ninety-seven percent of federal convictions come from guilty pleas.1 Defendants rely on prosecutors for much of the information about the government’s case on which the decision to plead is based. Although federal prosecutors routinely turn over most necessary discovery to the defense, the law does not generally require them to turn over any discovery before the guilty plea. This can lead to innocent defendants pleading guilty and to guilty defendants pleading guilty without information that could have affected the agreed-upon sentence. This Article argues that the lack of a judicially enforceable pre-plea discovery regime flouts structural protections that due process is supposed to provide. Defendants who plead not guilty and go to trial get a jury to adjudicate guilt and a judge to preside over the proceedings and pronounce sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Occum Inciment Et Fugia Nobitas Ditate Quam Neurolaw
    from SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012 Volume 24, Issue 5 A publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants Foundation Occum inciment et fugia nobitas ditate quam Neurolaw: Trial Tips for Today and Game Changing Questions for the Future By Alison Bennett HE FUTURE OF LAW is standing on the courthouse steps. cannot predict the point in time at which the intersection of Neurolaw – the combination of neuroscience research technology and law will merge to create credible courtroom Tand the law – is worthy of attention for a number of evidence, we can look to neurolaw research today for research reasons. Neuroscientists are conducting ground-breaking findings that confirm current trial practice techniques and research with a machine called a functional MRI, or fMRI, offer new insights into jury decision making and the art of which is similar to traditional MRI technology but focuses on persuasion. brain activity, not just structure. Some would argue the use of neuroscientific evidence based on fMRI research is a premature Current Criminal Trial Applications adoption of a novel technology, but neurolaw evidence is already In the United States, neuroscientific evidence has been influencing jury trials in the United States and abroad. Billions admitted in over one hundred criminal trials now, has been of dollars are being pored into interdisciplinary neuroscience cited in at least one U. S. Supreme Court case, and is being research each year in the United States and abroad. While we admitted as evidence in other countries as well. In many cases, September/October 2012 - Volume 24, Issue 5 thejuryexpert.com 1 neuroscientific evidence was offered to mitigate sentencing “John grasped the object” and “Pablo kicked the ball.” by presenting neuroimaging highlighting brain damage that The scans revealed activity in the motor cortex, which could have diminished the perpetrator’s capacity and ability coordinates the body’s movements, indicating imagining to make rational decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • 36 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2D SERIES UNITED STATES Of
    1196 36 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 3. Criminal Law O700(2.1) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, When district court is conducting pre- v. trial review of question whether exculpatory Jeffrey SUDIKOFF & Edward material in possession of prosecutor is re- Cheramy, Defendants. quired to be disclosed to defendant, govern- No. CR 97–1176 DDP. ment is required to disclose all evidence re- lating to guilt or punishment which might United States District Court, reasonably be considered favorable to defen- C.D. California. dant’s case, which is admissible or likely to March 2, 1999. lead to admissible favorable evidence. 4. Criminal Law O700(3) Defendants were charged with criminal Exculpatory information in possession of securities fraud. They moved for discovery of prosecutor, required to be turned over to information regarding negotiations leading to defendant under Brady, did not include inad- agreement of accomplice to testify in return missible evidence that would not lead to ad- for leniency. The District Court, Pregerson, J., held that: (1) exculpatory information in missible evidence, even though evidence in possession of prosecutor, required to be question would assist defendant in prepara- turned over to defendant under Brady, did tion of defense. not include inadmissible evidence that would 5. Criminal Law O700(4) not lead to admissible evidence; (2) any varia- tions in accomplice witness’ proposed testi- Any variations in an accomplice witness’ mony, from earlier statements made to au- proposed testimony, from earlier statements thorities, was required to be disclosed; (3) made to authorities, could be considered fa- information that revealed process by which vorable to the defense and the existence of accomplice witness and government reached such differences should be disclosed under leniency agreement was required to be dis- Brady.
    [Show full text]
  • The Admission of Government Agency Reports Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) by John D
    The Admission of Government Agency Reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(c) By John D. Winter and Adam P. Blumenkrantz or (B) matters observed pursuant having hearsay evidence admitted under to duty imposed by law as to which Rule 803(8)(c) follow from the justifica- matters there was a duty to report, tions for adopting the rule in the first excluding, however, in criminal cases place. The hearsay exception is premised matters observed by police officers on several conditions. First, the rule as- and other law enforcement person- sumes that government employees will nel, or (C) in civil actions . factual carry out their official duties in an honest 2 John D. Winter Adam P. Blumenkrantz findings resulting from an investiga- and thorough manner. This assump- tion made pursuant to authority tion results in the rule’s presumption of n product liability and other tort ac- granted by law, unless the sources of reliability. Second, the rule is based on the tions, plaintiffs may seek to introduce information or other circumstances government’s ability to investigate and re- Igovernment records or documents, indicate lack of trustworthiness. port on complex issues raised in many cas- federal and nonfederal alike, to establish es, from product liability claims to section one or more elements of their claims. In This article focuses specifically on 1983 actions against government officials. this regard, plaintiffs attempt to rely on the third prong of the rule: the use of Government agencies generally possess reports or letters written by government agency records in civil actions that result levels of expertise, resources, and experi- agencies responsible for overseeing the from an agency investigation made ence, including access to information that health, safety, and consumer aspects pursuant to authority granted by law.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct
    Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct General Description Policy Summary: Trinity University does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the University’s education program or activities, and is required by law, including Title IX and 34 CFR Part 106 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not to discriminate in such a manner. This requirement to not discriminate extends to admission and employment. Inquiries about the application of Title IX and 34 CFR Part 106 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Trinity University can be referred to the Title IX Coordinator or to the Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Education. Trinity University’s Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct provides information about options and obligations for reporting Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct, as well as information about rights, resources, response, investigation, and resolution of reports and complaints. Other forms of discrimination on the basis of sex are handled under the University’s Anti-Harassment Policy. Purpose: To outline the rights and responsibilities of members of the University community as it relates to matters of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct and to describe the process for receiving, responding to, and resolving reports of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct. Scope: This policy applies to faculty, staff, and students, as well as third-parties within the University’s control (such as contractors, volunteers, visitors, etc.), regardless of where the incident(s) took place. Exceptions: The University reserves the right to make exceptions to the process outlined in this policy when the Title IX Coordinator or designee determines it is in the best interest of the University, necessary for the safety or welfare of the University community, or to comply with the University’s legal obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia
    (not official copy) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA GENERAL PART Section One : GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. LEGISLATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article 1. Legislation Governing Criminal Proceedings Article 2. Objectives of the Criminal-Procedure Legislation Article 3. Territory of Effect of the Criminal-procedure Law Article 4. Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law in the Course of Time Article 5. Peculiarities in the Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law Article 6. Definitions of the Basic Notions Used in the Criminal-procedure Code CHAPTER 2. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Article 7. Legitimacy Article 8. Equality of All Before the Law Article 9. Respect for the Rights, Freedoms and Dignity of an Individual Article 10. Ensuring the Right to Legal Assistance Article 11. Immunity of Person Article 12. Immunity of Residence Article 13. Security of Property Article 14. Confidentiality of Correspondence, Telephone Conversations, Mail, Telegraph and Other Communications Article 15. Language of Criminal Proceedings Article 16. Public Trial Article 17. Fair Trial Article 18. Presumption of Innocence Article 19. The Right to Defense of the Suspect and the Accused and Guarantees for this Right Article 20. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (not official copy) Article 21. Inadmissibility of Repeated Conviction and Criminal Prosecution for the Same Crime Article 22. Rehabilitation of the Rights of the Persons who suffered from Judicial Mistakes Article 23. Adversarial System of Criminal Proceedings Article 24. Administration of Justice Exclusively by the Court Article 25. Independent Assessment of Evidence CHAPTER 3. CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CASE Article 26. Conduct of Criminal Case Article 27. The Obligation to institute a criminal case and resolution of the crime Article 28.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    no reactions indicative of deception. Htr. 44. Smith also testified that he was aware Davenport suffered a stroke sometime prior to 2006, did not have any record associated with the polygraph, and was now unavailable to answer questions about his conduct of the exam. Htr. 184-85. Smith also obtained two affidavits from Britt; one was executed on October 26,2005, the other in November 2005. Htr. 44-52; DX 5058; DX 5059. The October affidavit stated, in at least one paragraph, that Britt transported Stoeckley from Charleston to Raleigh; the November affidavit states that he transported her from Greenville to Raleigh. DX 5058 f 15; DX 5059 ^ 15; see also Htr. 40 (“Sometimes he said Charleston. Sometimes he said Greenville.”). The October affidavit also mentions what Britt felt was unethical behavior - Judge Dupree accepting cakes made by jurors - during the MacDonald trial. DX 5058 U 28. In February 2006, Britt executed an addendum to his affidavit, which included more detail than his previous affidavits. Htr. 199; GX 2089.34 Specifically, Britt stated that he and Holden transported Stoeckley to the courthouse on August 15,1979, for her interviews with the parties. GX 2089. He also stated that the defense interview of Stoeckley concluded around noon, and he then escorted her to the U.S. Attorney’s office. Britt again asserted that he was present during Stoeckley’s interview with the Government, and quoted Blackburn as telling her: “If you go downstairs and testify that you were at Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald’s house on the night of the murders, I will indict you as an accessory to murder.” Id.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 General Submission Guidelines for Evidence Control Centers, LIMS, and Pre-Log System
    KANSAS BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Forensic Science Center Phone: 785-296-1137 2001 SW Washburn Avenue Fax: 785-368-6564 Topeka, KS 66604 EVIDENCE SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Table of Contents 1 General Submission Guidelines for Evidence Control Centers, LIMS, and Pre-Log System ........................................................................4 1.1 Case and Item Information Submission Guidelines ..........................4 1.2 Packaging and Sealing Guidelines....................................................4 1.3 General Evidence Submission Guidelines ........................................5 1.3.1 Weapons, Firearms, and Explosive Devices....................................................5 1.3.2 Hazardous Chemicals ......................................................................................5 1.3.3 Biohazard Containing Submissions .................................................................6 2 Kansas Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Contacts.......................7 3 Submission Guidelines for Chemistry Evidence................................8 3.1 Scope of Analysis Performed............................................................8 3.2 General Guidelines............................................................................8 3.3 Submission Limits, Weights, and Sampling ......................................9 3.4 Plant Material ..................................................................................10 3.5 Syringes/Liquids..............................................................................10 3.6
    [Show full text]