here's a polic incompetancy story

[LCHIEN]

You hear all the time of thieves and robbers who are dumb.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...e/5377738.html

in this story an accused thief is caught and taken to trial.
The defense says they didn't find the money and his fingerprints were not found at the scene of the crime.

The jury asks to examine some of the evidence from the police and prosecution and they find in his coat $1300 and a pair of rubber gloves.

They convicted him.

The judge granted a retrial to the defense because the jury appareantly acted upon un-presented evidence.

The police had no comment.

[Uncle Cracker]

Very nice... It's hard to figure out who is the most pathetic.

[cgallery]

That's just strange. Had I been on the jury and had I saw another member remove the money and gloves from the coat, I'd be suspicious that we were somehow part of some psychological experiment or something.

[crokett]

So question is can the money and gloves be used as evidence in the second trial?

[Uncle Cracker]

So question is can the money and gloves be used as evidence in the second trial?

Shameless generalization: If the evidence is deemed by the judge in the second trial to have been collected by legal means, yes. Otherwise, no.

I think the problem in the first trial was that it was considered as evidence by the jury without having been duly entered as evidence. I think the problem in the second trial will be that, without proper evidential tagging and recording, there is no way that it can be certified as collected with the coat, therefore inadmissible. I don't think any DA in his right mind would touch this thing again with a 10' pole.

[LCHIEN]

according to the article the defense plans to petition to make the moeny and gloves inadmissible in the new trial, its not clear on what grounds. Had the police or DA found it when looking at the evidence before the trial and entering it as evidence as such and presented it in the trial that it had been found on him, then it would have been a slam dunk.

Clearly, the defense is taking a chance on its being admissible or not, but then they really have nothing to lose since they already lost the first trial.

[Uncle Cracker]

I think the defense will have a leg to stand on, at least with the gloves and cash. There is no way it can be shown that those items were not concealed on the coat after the fact. This is why evidence must be photographed in place, tagged, inventoried and entered immediately into the evidence report by the investigator. This is different from subsequent discovery. The credibility of anything that simply "shows up" after the article is handled or stored will be very rightly challenged by the adversary. Even the other evidence collected will be drawn into question, as there is indication of investigative incompetency. This is a fundamental investigative screw-up. Obviously, however, if there is enough other irrefutable evidence to convict, then the DA won't care if the gloves or cash are entered or not, and the defense might win the battle, but lose the war anyway.