Skip to main content

In a fatal car accident where the driver's blood is drawn to test for alcohol consumption or BAC level, should the blood evidence be thrown out if...

In a case such as this, it is likely that the evidence of the blood will be thrown out of court.  However, you can argue the issue of whether it should be.


In general, the prosecution has to be able to prove every link in the chain of custody in order to have something accepted as evidence.  In the case of a blood sample, this would mean that the prosecution would have to prove who had the blood sample at every step in the process.  The drawing of the blood is the first step in that process. Therefore, if the prosecution cannot show who drew the blood, they have not proven each link in the chain of custody.  This means that the evidence will probably be thrown out.


This leaves us with the question of whether the evidence should be thrown out.  This is more of a matter of opinion.  My own view is that the evidence should be thrown out if it casts real doubt on the validity of the sample.  Let us imagine a scenario in which Officer X can testify, saying that she saw another officer (whose name she cannot remember) draw the blood and then immediately took possession of the sample.  In such a case, I do not think the evidence should be thrown out.  The officer saw the blood being drawn and there is no question of the chain of custody after that.  In my mind, there is not a serious doubt about the validity of this evidence. On the other hand, imagine a scenario in which no one knows who drew the blood.  All they can testify to is that the blood sample was in the evidence kit after the accident.  In such a case, we have no way of knowing what happened to the sample between the time it was drawn and the time it ended up in the evidence.  There is too much chance that it could have been tampered with. In such a case, I would say the evidence should be thrown out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more