crime scene collection guidelines for defense attorneys sec

Aparticularly critical and challenging aspect ofcriminal defense litigation is the interpretation offorensic evidence. This article is designed to

address a question from the perspective of the criminaldefense attorney: Did law enforcement follow standard-ized evidence processing and collection guidelines?

It is vital that proper forensic information obtainedby law enforcement be incorporated into the overall evi-dentiary tableau. Forensic evidence evaluation by thedefense attorney poses a challenge for several reasons.First, law enforcement officers collect and integrate theforensic evidence without the defense attorney’s input orcontrol. Second, the crime scene is subject to degrada-tion almost immediately after the occurrence of theevent. A fundamental principle of entropy is that anysystem tends to disassemble into its component partswithout the constant application of external influences.With respect to a crime scene, there are constant envi-ronmental changes (e.g., temperature and light), physi-

cal/biological changes (e.g., body decomposition), andimportantly, changes resulting from human interven-tion. This can be easily seen in the example in theConstance Bailey murder crime scene photograph. SeePhoto Plate 1, taken by the Chicago Police Department(CPD).

Initially the police interpreted the scene in PhotoOne as a primary scene. However, it proved to be a sec-ondary scene. A close inspection of Bailey’s face revealedthat the left side of her face had been beaten. If it werethe primary scene, there would have been some form ofblood stain evidence in and around the area. She was alsomissing a black butterfly earring from her left ear lobe.The scene yielded no physical evidence except DNArecovered by the medical examiner at autopsy. This envi-ronment should have yielded shoe impression evidenceand trace evidence such as hair and fibers, since the vic-tim had been carried and positioned on the floor of theattic as photographed.

Entering the area of a crime scene may cause disrup-tion of air flow resulting in the movement of light mate-rial from one point to another. In addition, evidence col-lection personnel may inadvertently dislodge hair orfiber samples while dusting for latent prints. The crimescene technician must be flexible in considering the hier-archy of evidence while processing the scene due to itsconstant state of flux, either from natural causes or fromhuman intervention. This applies to a small area such asthe Lincoln, Mont., cabin of Theodore Kaczynski (the“Unabomber”) (Photo Plates 2 and 3), as well as anexceptionally large complex crime scene environment,such as the Sept. 11, 2001, crash site of Flight 93 inShanksville, Pa. (Photo Plate 4).

The challenge to the criminal defense attorney is to

B Y J O H N L O U I S L A R S E N A N D D A N I E L K . H A R R I S

W WW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N28

Crime Scene Forensic EvidenceCollection Guidelines For Defense Attorneys

effectively evaluate the forensic evidenceand demonstrate to the jury that (1) theevidence presented by the prosecution islacking in credibility; and (2) critical evi-dence was filtered out, missing, over-looked, or misrepresented since it was notcollected properly. In this era of the “CSIEffect,” proper evidence collection is acritical element in the eyes of the jury.

Crime Scene GuidelinesVirtually all crime scenes are unique

unto themselves. Also, as noted, a crimescene is subject to degradation from envi-ronmental, biological, and human inter-vention. This is one of the reasons that theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),through its Laboratory Division anddevelopment of its Evidence ResponseTeam (ERT) program, designed crimescene evidence collection Guidelines toinsure consistency in the collection of evi-dence and in documentation of scenes.The development of these searchGuidelines has extended out to the lawenforcement community at large. At thenational level the Department of Justice(DOJ) Office of Justice Programs and theNational Institute of Justice have generat-ed working groups to study and recom-mend national standards, such as in thecase of the 1997 “National Guidelines forDeath Investigation.” The crime sceneinvestigation guidelines are incorporatedin a DOJ report published in 2000. (SeeSuggested Reading at the end of this arti-cle.) It should be noted that the guidelinesreflect an organic process that evolves as aresult of incorporation of best practicesover time.

A critical element associated witheach FBI guideline is documentationresulting from the application of theguideline per se. Of particular concernto the defense attorney is the absence ofdocumentation for a particular guide-line indicating that either the guidelinewas not observed, and/or the guidelinewas in fact performed but not memori-alized. Either way, the importance ofconstructing an accurate and total foren-sic presentation of the crime scene canbe undermined and, depending on thenature of the omission, result in seriousevidentiary consequences.

FBI Crime Scene ForensicDocumentation Guidelines

The FBI Crime Scene ForensicGuidelines (“Guidelines”) may benamed differently by various lawenforcement agencies. Nomenclatureaside, however, the Guidelines should beroutinely applied and the results docu-mented for every crime scene regardlessof size or complexity. It is the latter doc-umentation that will provide the defenseattorney the ability to develop theunderlying structure of the forensic the-ory of the event.

The FBI documentation Guidelineswere developed by Supervisory SpecialAgent (SSA) Dale M. Moreau at the FBI

National Academy in Quantico, Va., in apublication entitled Practical SuggestionsRegarding Crime Scene Administrationand Management. In the early 1990s, this11-step approach was expanded to 12steps with “Preparation” as the first step.The initial 11 steps are the focus of thisarticle: (1) approach scene; (2) secureand protect scene; (3) conduct prelimi-nary survey; (4) evaluate physical evi-dence possibilities; (5) prepare narrativedescription; (6) photograph scene; (7)sketch scene; (8) conduct search; (9) col-lect, record, mark, and preserve the evi-dence; (10) conduct final survey; and(11) release the scene.

The following narrative reviewseach FBI Guideline and identifies docu-mentation that the defense attorneyshould anticipate being present.Omitted documentation for a particularGuideline may suggest a defect in theforensic evidence acquisition processand should be questioned.

Approach SceneThe arrival of law enforcement first

responders can be considered the mostimportant element in the crime sceneevidence recovery process. The firstresponder represents the initial, profes-sionally trained observer positioned todocument the overall visual aspects ofthe environment prior to any furthercrime scene degradation. The initialapproach to the crime scene shouldinclude noting the temperature andother environmental conditions, arti-facts that can be construed as discardedevidence, and potential witnesses in thevicinity of the scene. Personal notes oflaw enforcement first responders shouldinclude rough sketches or diagrams.

Secure and Protect SceneSecuring and protecting the crime

scene are critical. It is the responsibilityof the officer in charge (OIC) of theinvestigation to define the perimeter ofthe crime scene and to initiate measuresto protect the crime scene in its pristineform. The OIC may or may not definethe same crime scene perimeter asdrawn up by the first responder. It is theresponsibility of the OIC to documentthis expanded or contracted perimeter.The importance of expanding a perime-ter can easily be observed in theConstant Bailey murder scene. Her bodywas discovered in the walk-in attic onthe third floor, but the murder site waslocated in a second floor bedroom.

Of equal importance to securing the

WWW. N A C D L . O R G O C T O B E R 2 0 1 1

CRIME SCENE FORENSIC EVIDENCE COLLECTION GUIDELINES

29

Photo Plate 1

CPD Crime Scene Photograph/ ConstanceBailey — June 1999

Photo Plate 2

Exterior of Ted Kaczynski’s cabin

Photo Plate 3

Interior of Ted Kaczynski’s cabin

Photo Plate 4

FBI ERT Flight 93 Crash Site

crime scene is protecting it. Avoidingcrime scene contamination is critical tomaintaining the integrity of the environ-ment and subsequent evidence collec-tion. It is critical that the defense attor-ney identify initial responders, the OIC,law enforcement and forensic personnelwith legitimate reasons for entering thecrime scene. Seasoned investigators will

routinely use an

entry log not only to document who hasentered the scene, but also to controlaccess to the scene. In many cases theentry log will control both law enforce-ment and civilian personal attemptingunauthorized entrance into the perime-ter of the crime scene. This entry logshould be made part of the case file. Itcan be in the form of a preprinted for-mal document or merely drawn up on a

piece of paper. A crime scene entry logincludes ingress and egress times,names, affiliations, and reasons forentry.

Preliminary Survey andNarrative Description

The preliminary survey supportsthe management, organization, andlogistical elements of the crime scene.An important component of the pre-liminary survey is the narrative descrip-tion of the scene. The narrative descrip-tion does not rise to the level of granu-larity of other evidentiary elementssuch as the crime scene sketch, photo-graphs, and notes developed during adetailed search of the crime scene.Rather, the narrative description con-veys the overall conditions as the OICfirst encountered them. The narrativedescription also chronicles the condi-tion of elements easily subjected tochange including weather, temperature,and light conditions. It provides a doc-umentary reference to establish changesin objects or conditions resulting fromsubsequent, more detailed searches inthe investigation.

The critical importance of the nar-rative description cannot be overstated.The narrative description represents aprincipal work product of the OIC and isdesigned to be an objective, realistic, andunbiased depiction of the crime scene asencountered by the OIC during the ini-tial “walk through” of the scene. A narra-tive description that lacks detail and per-spective — or a narrative descriptionthat is incomplete or missing altogether— represents a major defect in the foren-sic evidence acquisition process.

The narrative description may be inthe form of handwritten or electronical-ly recorded notes, audiotapes, video-tapes, or a combination of media. It iscritical that the narrative description becompleted since it represents the OIC’s“walk through” of the crime scene.Lacking any of the latter characteristicsrepresents a serious defect in the evi-dence recovery process. See Plate 6 and6A, FBI Administrative Worksheet, as anexample of one way an agency or depart-ment can record a narrative.

The narrative description is thefoundation for an OIC to establish agood working plan for the search. Ofadditional importance is the consisten-cy of the notes of the first responderswith the narrative description of theOIC. Inconsistencies between firstresponders’ notes and the OIC’s narra-tive can be developed into an area of

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N30


Photo Plate 5

FBI ERT Flight 93 Crash Site



31

FBI Administrative Worksheet

PAGE

DATE

PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN SEARCH AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DUTIES

PRELIMINARY SURVEY/EVIDENCE EVALUATION(NOTES/OBSERVATIONS)

SPECIAL SITUATIONS OR CONDITIONS(NOTES/OBSERVATIONS)

CRIME SCENE CONFERENCE (NOTES/OBSERVATIONS)

FINAL SURVEY (NOTES/OBSERVATIONS)

NAMETITLEDATETIMESIGNATURE

NAMETITLEDATETIME

LIGHTING CONDITIONSWEATHER CONDITIONSSCENE CONSISTS OF (GENERAL DESCRIPTION)

Photo Plate 6

ADMINISTRATIVE WORKSHEET

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONCOMPLETED AND RELEASE

OF SCENE AUTHORIZED

CRIME SCENE RELEASED TO

OF

LOCATIONCASE IDENTIFIERPREPARER/ASSISTANTS

TIME AND DATE OF ARRIVALPERSON(S) PRESENT AT SCENE AT TIME OF ARRIVAL

PERSON IN CHARGE OF SCENE AT TIME OF ARRIVAL

CONTROL OF SCENE OBTAINED FROM

TIME AND DATE OF CONTROL ACQUISITION

CONDITION OF SCENE ON ARRIVAL(SECURED/UNSECURED)

focus for both defense and prosecutingattorneys.

Evaluate Physical EvidenceThis Guideline is an ongoing

process throughout the conduct of thesearch. It may affect how evidence isrecovered. This Guideline addressessafety issues. It affects not only the paceat which the search can be conducted,but the evidence that can be gathered.For example, the Sept. 11, 2001, Flight93 crash site was highly contaminatedwith aviation fuel, bio-human materi-als, and airframe debris. After a safetyofficer laid out the safety equipmentneeds and the agents were appropriate-ly dressed, the search could commence.The evaluation of the evidence and con-sideration of safety issues are inter-twined within this Guideline. The OICis responsible for continually monitor-ing these two areas. An attorney ques-tioning a lead investigator can easilywalk into a minefield if unaware thatthis Guideline is ongoing throughoutthe search. It affords the investigatortestifying to bring in personal sensitiveissues of safety, which is more appealing

to the jury, and could cloud an issuethat the defense attorney is trying toclarify or establish. See Photo Plate 5.

Photograph ScenePortrayal of crime scene evidence

through photographs is essential.Incomplete or poorly organized photo-graphic evidence is unacceptable to allparticipants in the courtroom proceed-ings. The photographic array shouldportray a chronology and should tell a“story” comprehensible not only to lawenforcement and the court, but to thejury. A critical component supportingthe photographic array is the photo-graphic log. The photographic log docu-ments photographic equipment used,personnel involved, sequence of photostaken, locations, orientation and detailedphotographs of all evidentiary items.

Crime scene photographs are usu-ally taken in a chronological orderstarting with a face sheet (identificationsheet) showing case number, date, loca-tion, and photographer. Photographsshould provide a clear visual documen-tation of the scene. In many instancesthese photographs show the nature of

the crime, the results of the crime, andphysical evidence produced as a resultof the crime. A poorly photographedcrime scene distorts the facts and pro-vides defense counsel with an area thatcan be probed in court.

Sketch ScenePhotographs do not replace a

crime scene sketch. Photographs are atwo dimensional representation of thespace, while a sketch provides spatial(distance) relationships that supplantand complement the two dimensionalphotographs.

The sketch also facilitates portrayalof all crime scene objects in relationshipto each other, including items that aredifficult to photograph. A rough crimescene sketch should be executed withthe expectation that the rough sketchcan be converted at a later date for pres-entation at Grand Jury or court. At aminimum, the sketch should includethe specific location, date, case identifi-er, preparer/assistants, scale or scale dis-claimer, compass orientation, evi-dence/pertinent objects, measurementsif needed, a key, and a legend. While



Sketch — York Police Department, S.C.Photo Plate 7

Presented in Partnership by the national association of criminal Defense Lawyers

and the california attorneys for criminal Justice

Fax to 202-872-8690

Registration InformationCircle your membership category fee and note the Grand Total due.Confirmation letters will be sent to all registrants in late February. Registrantsmust stop by the on-site registration desk before attending any events to receivetheir badge and materials. Cancellations must be received in writing by 5:30 pm EST on March 19, 2012 to receive a refund, less a $75 pro-cessing fee.A $15 processing fee will be applied for returned checks. To regis-ter online, visit www.nacdl.org/cle; or fax this form with credit card infor-mation to 202-872-8690; or mail with full payment to: 2012 ForensicSeminar, 1660 L St., NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.Questions? Contact Viviana Sejas at 202-872-8600 x632.

Name ________________________________________________________________________________

Badge name (if different) ________________________________________________________________

CLE State(s) __________________________ Bar # (s) ________________________________________

Address _______________________________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________ State ____________________ Zip ________________

Office phone _______________________________ Home phone _______________________________

E-mail _____________________________________________ Fax _______________________________

Guest(s)/children ________________________________________________________________________

m Check enclosed (payable to NACDL)

m AMEX m VISA m MASTERCARD m DISCOVER

Card Number __________________________________________________________________________

Name on Card ________________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Billing Address ________________________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________ State ____________________ Zip ________________

Authorized Signature ______________________________________________________________________

Fax to: (202) 872-8690

Seminar Registration FeesNACDL Members: Regular, Life and Sustaining $385CACJ Members $385All NEVADA Lawyers $225All Public Defenders $280Non-Members of NACDL or CACJ $560Groups of (4) or more lawyers $215(Must register at the same time with one payment; no changes)

Discounted NACDL Membership & SeminarRegular Membership & Seminar (First Time Members Only) $535PD Membership & Seminar (First Time Members Only) $405

Seminar Total

Materials FeesSeminar Attendee Audio CD $150Non-Attendee Audio CD $200Non-Attendee Written Materials & Audio CD $250Video DVD (Pre-Sale) $400

Materials Total

Subtotal

GA CLE fee add $60.00*NC CLE fee add $40.00*PA CLE fee add $21.00*

IL, NE, UT CLE fee add $15.00*TX CLE fee add $10.00*

*State fees musti be paid in advance to receive CLE credit.If left blank, you will not receive credit.

Grand Total

Select your seminar materials preference:CD-ROM (included) Hard copy (add $30)

Making SenSe of Science V: forenSic Science & the Law

March 23-24, 2012 Ø The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas Ø Las Vegas, NV

Topics will include:Ø “Seat of Your Pants” Forensics

ØBlood Spatter

ØState of NC v. Gregory: A Case Study

ØMental Defenses

ØCognitive Interview Techniques, Signs

of Deception, and Forensic Artistry

ØWorking with Forensic Experts

ØDigital Forensics

ØForensic Evidence in Sexual Assaults

ØEyewitness ID

ØArson Evidence

ØPharmacology for Lawyers

NACDL & CACJ's 5th Annual Forensic Science Seminar will be

a two-day event in the City of Lights — Las Vegas! In the

modern world, you need to know and understand the forensic

sciences in order to effectively represent your clients. Attend

this one-of-a-kind CLE seminar and leave with a better

understanding of forensic evidence and technology to use in

the arsenal of tools to win your next case. If it involves

forensic evidence or technology in a criminal case, it will be

covered at this one-of-a-kind seminar.

www.nacdl.org/cle



essential to the overall understanding ofthe crime scene, especially by the jury, itis not unusual for a police agency to omitthe crime scene sketch from its initialreports. This is a serious omission andcan compromise the overall portrayal ofthe crime scene per se.

An example of a poorly articulatedscene sketch can be observed in Plate 7— South Carolina v. Bobby Lee Holmes.In this case the sketch was generated onJan. 6, 1990, for a sexual assault (later ahomicide) case that took place on themorning of Dec. 31, 1989. The sketchlacks clarity because it does not have acompass orientation or clear layout ofthe floor plan of the victim’s apartment.Written on the sketch is a notationinforming the reader that a latent printwas recovered on the inside front door.The sexual assault took place in thebedroom, but again the reader has noway of knowing the location in the bed-room. When a sketch is missing from aninitial report, especially in a felony, onewonders if there is a reason. Basic crimescene sketching is a Guideline that goeshand-in-hand with incident scenereconstruction even at the lowest levelsof our legal system, i.e., basic trafficaccident reporting.

Conduct Search

Conducting the search seems simple,but it is not. This Guideline presents themost problems for federal, state, and localofficers conducting the search. The searchshould be systematic, and items of possibleevidentiary value need to be pho-tographed in place and memorialized.Officers are trained to take overall, mid-range, and close up photographs of itemsthat are to be removed from the scene ormay be of historic value. For example, abullet deflection mark on the side of abuilding may be the one piece of evidencethat proves a client was fleeing and was notthe shooter based on the deflection markdirectionality. If not documented, thispiece of evidence will be lost to both theprosecution and the defense.

An issue that continually comes up atsearches is the removal of evidence beforeit is photographed, sketched, or witnessedby another officer and described in a writ-ten document such as an evidence recov-ery log. Documenting this evidencebefore it is removed is crucial. Agents andlocal police officers who forget to followthe Guidelines will handle weapons,drugs, and spent shell casings withoutregard to whether there has been docu-mentation. When an officer removes anitem, it cannot be put back. As a result, theofficer recovering the item has to writesome form of supplemental report thatwill have to accompany the item in orderto establish its pedigree (chain of cus-tody). This is an area in which doubt canbe established as to the credibility of theofficer. An officer on the witness standshould be able to explain the searchGuidelines to the court. When searchrecovery Guidelines break down, the cred-ibility of the searcher and the evidencethat is obtained may become suspect.

Collect, Record, Mark, And Preserve Evidence (Chain of Custody)

The most time-consuming elementof crime scene investigation is the collect-ing, recording, marking, and preserving ofphysical evidence. Prior to the evidencecollection, all evidentiary items will havebeen photographed and noted in the pho-tographic log. Key items should be markedon the crime scene sketch. Collected itemsof evidence should be documented in anevidence log. The following items will benoted in the log: item number (barcode),general description of the item, whorecovered the item (initials) and witness,whether or not the item was pho-

tographed (frame number), how the itemwas marked (directly or indirectly) andmiscellaneous (any observation specifical-ly related to the item). If possible, twoinvestigators should be identified as hav-ing seen an evidentiary item prior to col-lection. This recommendation cannotalways be followed due to the size of thesearch and, in many cases, the size of thedepartment.

An evidence log is prepared reflect-ing all evidence collected. The crimescene sketch is updated reflecting theposition of all physical evidence collect-ed. Photographs are taken of all evidenceitems before collection. All references tospecific evidence items should beentered on the evidence log and cross-referenced to the crime scene sketch andphotographs.

Conduct Final SurveyAt the conclusion of evidence collec-

tion, the OIC should conduct a final sur-vey of the premises. The purpose of thesurvey is to ensure all evidence has beencollected, to double-check the crime scenedocumentation, to ensure all equipmentused to process the crime scene is account-ed for, and to photograph the crime scenepremises showing its condition after com-pletion of the search.

Release SceneThe crime scene should be released

only after the final survey has been con-ducted. In doing so, the answers to thesequestions require documentation: Whatwas the time and date of release of thescene? To whom was the scene released?How was the scene secured and by whom?In addition, an inventory of all itemsremoved from the crime scene should beprovided to the individual to whom thecrime scene is released, with a supportingcopy of the inventory that will be placed inthe case file. Observance of the releaseprocess is critical because after the crimescene is released, subsequent alterations tothe scene can occur.

ConclusionForensic evidence serves as a core

component that will lead to and supportthe theory of a crime. Moreover, prosecu-tors, defense attorneys, and jurors relyupon forensic evidence to facilitate forma-tion of opinions and, ultimately, to distillthe truth. Forensic evidence itself repre-sents information that is subject to inter-pretation. However, the process of collect-ing forensic material and the material’s

Suggested Reading✤ NAT’L INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEP’T OFJUSTICE, CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION: AGUIDE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT (2000).Read the report at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf.

✤ ROSS M. GARDNER & TOM BEVEL,PRACTICAL CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS AND

RECONSTRUCTION (2009).

✤ BARRY A. J. FISHER, TECHNIQUES OF CRIMESCENE INVESTIGATION (7th ed. 2004).

✤ ARTHUR E. WESTVEER JR., MANAGING

DEATH INVESTIGATION, Vol. I, 5th ed., U.S.Department of Justice, FederalBureau of Investigation (2002).

✤ JAMES N. GILBERT, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION(5th ed. 2001).

✤MARK R. HAWTHORNE, FIRST UNITRESPONDER: A GUIDE TO PHYSICAL EVIDENCECOLLECTION FOR PATROL OFFICERS (1999).

✤ John Louis Larsen, Recovering LatentFingerprints From Cadavers, 6 EVIDENCETECH. MAG. 11-22 (May-June 2008).

✤ John Louis Larsen, Shooting-IncidentReconstruction Within a Room, 8EVIDENCE TECH. MAG. 14-17 (July-August 2010).

observations of an ‘independent scientis[t]’made ‘according to a non-adversarial publicduty.’ … That argument fares no better herethan it did in Melendez–Diaz. A documentcreated solely for an ‘evidentiary purpose,’Melendez–Diaz clarified, made in aid of apolice investigation, ranks as testimonial.”Id. at 2717 (citations omitted).

27. Id. (“In all material respects, the lab-oratory report in this case resembles thosein Melendez–Diaz.”).

28. Id. at 2718. Melendez–Diaz, relyingon Crawford ‘s rationale, refused to create a“forensic evidence” exception to this rule.

29. Justices Thomas, Kagan, andSotomayor did not join this part of the opin-ion. This may be because this sectionaddressed policy matters, particularly theexpense or burden the States claim the ruleof Melendez-Diaz imposes — an issue thejustices believed was unnecessarilyaddressed to support the holding of thiscase.

30. Id. at 2719. The Court examinessome statistical evidence offered by amicifrom, inter alia, Michigan, in noting the inva-lidity of this argument.

31. Id. at 2718-19.32. Id. at 2718. Interestingly, there has

not been a spate of these statutes enacteddespite the obvious suggestion by theCourt in Melendez-Diaz.

33. Id. at 2719. 34. Id. at 2720 (citing Michigan v. Bryant,

131 S. Ct. at 155) (other citations omitted).35. Id. at 2720 n.1.36. “The hearsay rule’s recognition of

the certificates’ evidentiary purpose thusconfirmed our decision that the certificateswere testimonial under the primary pur-pose analysis required by the ConfrontationClause.” Id.

37. Id. at 2721-22.38. Id. at 2722.39. Id. (citing Bryant, Melendez-Diaz and

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008)).40. Id.41. Id.42. Id. (citing FED. R. EVID. 703).43. Id.44. Id.45. Id. at 2724.46. Id. at 2725 (citing Michigan v. Bryant,

131 S. Ct. at 1155-56).47. Id. at 2724.48. Id. at 2726-27.49. Id. at 2728.50. Barba v. California, ___ S. Ct. ___,

2011 WL 2535076 (June 28, 2011).51. 2010 WL 571950, *9-10 (Cal. App. 2d.

Dist. 2010) (unpublished opinion).52. Dilboy v. New Hampshire, ___ S.

Ct.___, 2011 WL 2535078 (June 28, 2011);State v. Dilboy, 160 N.H. 135, 999 A.2d 1032(N.H. 2010).

53. See, e.g., United States v. Harrington,2011 WL 3299935, *2 (Army Ct. Crim. App.July 29, 2011) (Citing Bullcoming, the courtstated: “The use of a surrogate witness ‘whodid not sign the certification or perform orobserve the test’ in question is not a consti-tutional substitute for the cross-examina-tion of the declarant whose testimonialstatement is actually admitted into evi-dence.”); Wood v. State, 299 S.W.3d 200, 213(Tex. App. 2009) (expert’s testimony disclos-ing statements in autopsy report uponwhich his opinion was based violatedConfrontation Clause), petition for discre-tionary review refused (2010).

54. United States v. Moore, ___ F.3d ___,2011 WL 3211511 (D.C. Cir. July 29, 2011).

55. Id. at *32.56. Id. at *34-35. It found any error appli-

cable to the autopsy evidence to be harm-less, but remanded to the trial court theissue of whether the drug analyses reportsmay be error requiring those convictions tobe vacated.

57. Id. at 33 (citing Justice Sotomayor’sconcurring opinion in Bullcoming).

58. Id. (citation omitted).59. The Supreme Court granted certio-

rari in Williams on June 28, 2011; 2011 WL2535081, 80 USLW 3001 (U.S. Jun 28,2011) (No. 10-8505).

60. People v. Williams, 238 Ill.2d 125, 939N.E.2d 268, 271 (2010).

61. People v. Goldstein, 6 N.Y.3d 119, 843N.E.2d 727 (2005). See also Steven Yermish,Melendez-Diaz and the Application ofCrawford in the Lab, THE CHAMPION, August2009 at 28.

62. See People v. Loy, 52 Cal.4th 46, 254P.3d 980 (2011) (trial court erred in permit-ting expert witness to testify to testimonialhearsay to establish foundation for samplehe used in analysis) (citing Bullcoming).

63. The rule governing expert testimo-ny under the Federal Rules is FED. R. EVID. 703.Most states have a similar, if not identical,state counterpart.

64. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36,61 (2004) (“Where testimonial statementsare involved, we do not think the Framersmeant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s pro-tection to the vagaries of the rules of evi-dence.”).

65. Compare State v. Johnson, 908 So. 2d672 (Fla. 2008) (lab supervisor who testifiedin lieu of analyst who performed test violat-ed confrontation right) with Dunn v. State,292 Ga. App. 667, 665 S.E.2d 377 (2008) (labsupervisor who came to “independent con-clusion” but did not perform testing, includ-ing gas chromatography, may testify tounderlying tests).n


BULLCOMIN

G V. NEW MEXIC

O

35

BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICOContinued from page 21

About the AuthorsJohn Larsen is president of Larsen Foren-

sics Inc. He is theprincipal forensicinstructor at theSuburban Law En-forcement Acade-my, College of Du-Page, Glen Ellyn, Ill.,since retiring fromthe FBI.

John Louis LarsenLarsen Forensics, Inc.208 N. Park Blvd.Glen Ellyn, IL 60137630-418-0031

[email protected]

Dan Harris is Director of Operations atLarsen Forensics Inc.

Daniel K. HarrisLarsen Forensics, Inc.208 N. Park Blvd.Glen Ellyn, IL 60137630-418-0031

[email protected]

E-MAIL

E-MAIL

underlying documentation (e.g., photosand sketches) places the collected evidencein context to reveal a complete story of theevent. The FBI Evidence Response teamevidence collection Guidelines are a key toformulating expectations of the process ofevidence collection and, by inference, thefidelity of the evidence recovered. Equallyimportant, omissions or exceptions to theGuidelines should require explanation.

The defense attorney may be per-ceived as being at a disadvantage because ofa lack of control over the law enforcementforensic collection process. That is not tosay that the defense attorney does not haverecourse. Critical evaluation of the forensicevidence per se, utilizing the FBIGuidelines or the national standards as atemplate, including establishing the pres-ence or absence of documented evidence,can reveal missing or incomplete forensicevidence. These deficiencies can be tools toaid the defense in establishing reasonabledoubt. n

Photographs © Larsen Forensics Inc.

crime scene collection guidelines for defense attorneys sec

Documents