48 ms·

Any lawyers in the house who could comment on their refusal to test his hands? Can they refuse to run a test because they're afraid it might produce exculpator

Any lawyers in the house who could comment on their refusal to test his hands? Can they refuse to run a test because they're afraid it might produce exculpatory evidence?

giantg2 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but in my experience they don't need to do any tests. They usually have a policy that requires them to make a "thorough" investigation. Nobody holds them to that. For example, a trooper knew there were third party witnesses to a crime and did not seek them out. Granted, that trooper also withheld actual exculpatory evidence. Either way, nothing happened, because who watches the watchers?
tjfl 5y ago
IANAL, but curious and searched. > A number of techniques designed to detect gunshot residues (GSR) on the hands of a suspect or victim have been developed. These techniques range from the now-discredited paraffin test to the more modern techniques which use instrumental analysis or scanning electron microscopy. The limitations of all GSR techniques are that the residues can be removed by rubbing or washing the hands and usually must be collected soon after the firearm is fired, yet even valid GSR tests are not conclusive. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/forensic-science-gunshot-residue-tests https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/forensic...
- giantg2 5y ago
  Very few forensic techniques are conclusive for a case. They are usually conclusive as in the test was either positive or negative. Then the forensic expert has to give testimony as to what it means. Just look at the medical experts in the Chauvin trial. It's just like many news articles today - the facts don't lie, but people can misapply them to say different things.
robbedpeter 5y ago
The Supreme Court ruled that 5th amendment protects you from incriminating yourself even if you're innocent, and in some states that extends to investigations of your body. Never talking to or cooperating with police, unless legally required as advised by your lawyer, is what's known in legal circles as "smart."
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  That's not applicable here, because the defendant was asking police to timely collect additional evidence for its exculpatory potential.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    I was referring to the suspect declining to be tested for gunpowder residue, and the ensuing tangent.
jonhohle 5y ago
Not being in or having interactions with the criminal justice system, but having been involved in _many_ technology post-mortems, why wouldn’t you want to collect exculpatory evidence? Without it, and in the best case an innocent individual goes free, but with a cloud of uncertainty. In the worst case an innocent individual is convicted of a crime and the perpetrator goes without consequence. If LEOs and prosecutors are incentivized based on raw arrest or conviction counts, then the consequence for being wrong should be astronomical (say, the sentence of the wrongfully convicted times a ≥ 1x multiplier).
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If you start from a premise that law enforcement is searching for the truth above all else, your conclusions make sense.
  - jonhohle 5y ago
    I would think that as part of enforcing laws, truth seems like it would be relatively important. The idea of incorrectly convicting someone for a serious crime not only is an injustice to the innocent, it leaves the community in an unsafe and unwitting position regarding an actual perpetrator. In those cases it would be better to have no law enforcement involvement at all.
    - thaeli 5y ago
      The aftermath of many crimes, in America at least, would have been better with no law enforcement involvement at all. It's really that bad here.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Anyone who is acting to infringe upon real justice is most apt to either be a sociopath who only cares about keeping score or a lot more likely a moral person but not ethical person who regards their job as getting criminals. If they truly believe you are guilty then convicting a larger portion of guilty people even via impure means is a net good for society and incidentally for their career.

Any lawyers in the house who could comment on their refusal to test his hands? Can they refuse to run a test because they're afraid it might produce exculpatory evidence?

giantg2 5y ago

Not a lawyer, but in my experience they don't need to do any tests. They usually have a policy that requires them to make a "thorough" investigation. Nobody holds them to that. For example, a trooper knew there were third party witnesses to a crime and did not seek them out. Granted, that trooper also withheld actual exculpatory evidence. Either way, nothing happened, because who watches the watchers?

tjfl 5y ago

IANAL, but curious and searched. > A number of techniques designed to detect gunshot residues (GSR) on the hands of a suspect or victim have been developed. These techniques range from the now-discredited paraffin test to the more modern techniques which use instrumental analysis or scanning electron microscopy. The limitations of all GSR techniques are that the residues can be removed by rubbing or washing the hands and usually must be collected soon after the firearm is fired, yet even valid GSR tests are not conclusive. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/forensic-science-gunshot-residue-tests https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/forensic...

giantg2 5y ago
Very few forensic techniques are conclusive for a case. They are usually conclusive as in the test was either positive or negative. Then the forensic expert has to give testimony as to what it means. Just look at the medical experts in the Chauvin trial. It's just like many news articles today - the facts don't lie, but people can misapply them to say different things.

robbedpeter 5y ago

The Supreme Court ruled that 5th amendment protects you from incriminating yourself even if you're innocent, and in some states that extends to investigations of your body. Never talking to or cooperating with police, unless legally required as advised by your lawyer, is what's known in legal circles as "smart."

anigbrowl 5y ago
That's not applicable here, because the defendant was asking police to timely collect additional evidence for its exculpatory potential.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  I was referring to the suspect declining to be tested for gunpowder residue, and the ensuing tangent.

jonhohle 5y ago

Not being in or having interactions with the criminal justice system, but having been involved in _many_ technology post-mortems, why wouldn’t you want to collect exculpatory evidence? Without it, and in the best case an innocent individual goes free, but with a cloud of uncertainty. In the worst case an innocent individual is convicted of a crime and the perpetrator goes without consequence. If LEOs and prosecutors are incentivized based on raw arrest or conviction counts, then the consequence for being wrong should be astronomical (say, the sentence of the wrongfully convicted times a ≥ 1x multiplier).

sokoloff 5y ago
If you start from a premise that law enforcement is searching for the truth above all else, your conclusions make sense.
- jonhohle 5y ago
  I would think that as part of enforcing laws, truth seems like it would be relatively important. The idea of incorrectly convicting someone for a serious crime not only is an injustice to the innocent, it leaves the community in an unsafe and unwitting position regarding an actual perpetrator. In those cases it would be better to have no law enforcement involvement at all.
  - thaeli 5y ago
    The aftermath of many crimes, in America at least, would have been better with no law enforcement involvement at all. It's really that bad here.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Anyone who is acting to infringe upon real justice is most apt to either be a sociopath who only cares about keeping score or a lot more likely a moral person but not ethical person who regards their job as getting criminals. If they truly believe you are guilty then convicting a larger portion of guilty people even via impure means is a net good for society and incidentally for their career.