FRANK CARSON ET AL 12-12-2017 am audio

080617_1506_WAZZUPDAWG1.jpg

HERE IS THE MORNING REPORT

 

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. so their expert poked it with a stick and discovered the ground is hard…? …this entire investigation has been depressingly unprofessional..

  2. Wait a minute. Did I read this correctly? The so-called soil expert dug up the entire “grave-site”? That is expoliation of evidence. My understanding of the law is that because the evidence was destroyed, it cannot be introduced into evidence by the party causing the destruction. You cannot dig up a “grave-site” and say, “See, there’s the evidence of the grave site (or hole)” because you made the hole, or destroyed any evidence there may have been of a hole dug by someone else. The “expert” may be able to introduce what was found in the place he dug like pieces of clothing (so long as it was not destroyed), and the prosecution may be able to introduce testimony that a person says he dug a hole there, but they cannot introduce evidence of a soil analysis that shows a hole was dug there or the dimensions or density of the alleged hole.

    For example, if a blood sample is destroyed when it is tested for alcohol content, guess what? The results of that test are not coming into evidence. It is a due process and equal protection issue. What am I missing?

    But since Judge Z. is allowing this evidence to be introduced, that means the defense is entitled to a limiting jury instruction re: expoliation of evidence which basically says the jury may make an adverse inference against the prosecution (i.e., that the prosecution is hiding something)..

    https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.js

Comments are closed.