Chain of Custody: MacDonalds Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Protecting evidence from contamination
Appropriate techniques for handling evidence
Proper and improper chain of custody
Latent and visible evidence
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Chain of custody is a significant practice, which involves proper handling of exhibits through the justice process. The practice determines the direction that a court case takes during the trial process. Perhaps, for worse, Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, who was a professional surgeon in the military before being convicted of murder charges in 1979, is alleged to have suffered an injustice following poor handling of exhibits by the FBI. The attorneys of the convict lamented that the law enforcement agency tabled compromised forensic evidence to pin down their client on a crime he is alleged not to have committed. The convict was accused and jailed for knowingly participating in the execution of his spouse and their two children. But MacDonald has repeatedly maintained his innocence (Shalit, 1997).

Protecting evidence from contamination

The chain of custody may have had an affect the outcome of the murder charges that MacDonald faced, by implicating him for the heinous crime (Attah et al, 2010). This calls for protection of the evidence from contamination to avoid an injustice on the part of the police. Juries and jurors tasked with unraveling justice are obliged to corroborate the consistency of the chain of custody and issue verdict based on the proof that pieces of evidence presented before the court are not tampered with. In view of this, an uninterrupted transfer of proof, backed by proper security and authenticity of the officers under whose custody the evidence lay is enough proof of the safety of the exhibits.

Appropriate techniques for handling evidence

Functional justice systems demand the practice of appropriate techniques for handling criminal evidence. For instance, Attah et al (2010) suggests the corroboration of chain of custody is an imperative aspect that directly affects the fate of the evidence, may implicate or exonerate a suspect from criminal charges (Schum, Tecuci, & Boicu, 2009). For instance, in the MacDonald trial for murder crime; police officer A, recovered a weapon from the accused; A handed over the weapon to police detective B; B then handed over the firearm to forensic expert C; who would carry out an examination of the weapon; C gave the weapon to law enforcer D, who carried the firearm to court.

Proper and improper chain of custody

The consistent statements of A, B, C, and D would comprise the weapons valid chain of custody, and the trial would require a statement by each individual in the sequence to ascertain both the state and integrity of the proof, unless the accused indicated otherwise, to expedite the trial process. Nevertheless, MacDonalds defense team of lawyers believes the chain of custody was improper. The attorneys maintain that, though, this chain of custody was expected to be beyond reproach in the MacDonald case, the FBI forensic department allegedly compromised the evidence during the examination process, resulting in the jailing of the suspect for a crime he may not have committed. In spite of the significance of the chain of custody, in some cases, the practice may not be necessary, in case a piece of substantial evidence is received by the prosecution. Additionally, tangible proof that can be easily identified by court witness should not necessarily be reinforced by chain-of-custody evidence. A perfect example is the case involving exhibits that bear a serial number or one that contains the signature of a police officer who gathered the proof. Similarly, exhibits that are intrinsically typical or unforgettable, such as a hold-up note inscribed in purple colored chalk might be adequately unique and recognizable that they reaffirm the reliability of the facts (Twinning, 2010).

Latent and visible evidence

Visible evidence can be seen with the naked eye by a keen look. For example, visible fingerprints can occur when an individual touches a thick liquid such as oil, blood, or glue and then makes contacts with the soiled hands on another surface. Latent evidence has a dissimilar composition compared to visible proof, a feature that can only be resolved by incorporating chemical reagents and magnifiers (Twinning, 2010).

Conclusion

Chain of custody is a significant aspect of criminal justice, and its inconsistency compromises the value of evidence tabled by the prosecution in the courtroom. The essential basis, set up to ascertain the authenticity of the practice, on an exhibit remains the function of the trial arbitrator. Possibilities of improper marking and defilement of the materials must be eradicated, to reduce injustices in the criminal justice. In a case where sufficient evidence exists, that the facts are what they claim to be, and that statement is given by each conscientious individual in the chain, consistencies pertaining to correctness of testimony concerning the chain of custody add weight to the proof. Nonetheless, this does not render the exhibit admissible by the court; implying that the facts would be entered into the trial records to enable the judge or jury make thorough evaluation facts presented, in order to ascertain its consistency and issue an impartial verdict.

References

Attah et al (2010). Awareness towards Chain of Custody Certification in Africa: the Case of Ghana. Notulae Scientia Biologicae, 2(3), 121-127.

Schum, D.A., Tecuci, G., & Boicu, M. (2009). Analyzing Evidence and Its Chain of Custody: A Mixed-Initiative Computational Approach. International Journal of Intelligence & Counterintelligence, 22(2), 298-319.

Shalit, R. (1997). Fatal Revision. New Republic, 216(21), 18-21.

Twinning, W. (2010). Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 20 (3), 473-517.

Click Here To Order Now!