Preservation Of Evidence

Many cases are won or lost by the weight of the prosecution’s evidence. Through methods of discovery of evidence, both the prosecution and defense have equal opportunity to develop evidence they believe is needed to prove or dismiss/ reject claims. Trace evidence and the preservation of evidence are very vital in any investigation. These two components are two of the most important things that can help investigators find their suspect(s), and lock them up or if done without proper care, the preservation of evidence or lack thereof can possibly make or break a case. Investigators taking the time out to pull trace evidence off of their victim(s), and placing it in whatever object is fit to hold and preserve the evidence, is very vital, because
Local, county, and state investigative agencies, prosecutors, the attorney general also have the duty to preserve evidence. If the prosecution’s evidence is destroyed, the defense has to prove the burden of the state or prosecution didn’t uphold their duty in preserving the evidence, which violates the compromised rights of due process and rights to a fair trial. According to an article by NOLO, unless the defense can prove that the evidence in question was exculpatory and that the government acted in bad faith, courts won’t do anything about an alleged violation of destroyed evidence. Once evidence is destroyed it is up to the defense to prove his or her client’s case, which may be hard, because despite the evidence not being able to manipulate what direction the case or trial goes in, the defense must prove that every other aspect of the suspects, such as the suspects whereabouts the time in which the crime took place must align to get their client
For example, in the Arthur Whitfield case, in 1981 Arthur Whitfield was convicted of sexual assault, and accepted a plea for another rape that happened the same evening. Despite the victim describing the perpetrator that sexual assaulted her as clean cut, and Whitfield had a beard, Whitfield was convicted of rape and also with the plea he took for another rape, he was sentenced to 62 years in prison. Decades later in 2003, Arthur Whitfield filed for a motion of post-conviction DNA testing. Whitfield wasn’t allowed the opportunity of post-conviction DNA testing at the time, because unfortunately that evidence from his alleged crime and trial appeared to be destroyed. Later that year, the lab was able to find evidence from the notebook of the criminalist, and the lab later concluded that Arthur Whitfield wasn’t the perpetrator, but a third party was that was already serving a life sentence for sexual assault was the perpetrator. Whitfield was later freed after 22 years in prison of wrongful imprisonment. This example was used to demonstrate, how the preservation of evidence as well as accurate investigation can make or break a case for the better or worse. Also illustrating how trace evidence is important in cases as such, because that as well can make or break a