Lying about knowledge of planted evidence is one of the top ethical failures of forensic scientists, according to the American Academy of Forensic Science. As a defense consultant, I have been involved in at least two murder conviction appeals in which I strongly suspect a detective planted evidence to dupe the crime scene technicians.
The first murder happened in a northwestern state. The suspect was convicted and sentenced to life. After 12 or 15 years, the case was going up on appeal with a new appellate attorney. No previous defense attorney had hired an independent consultant. The new attorney wanted me to examine the fingerprint evidence for signs of fingerprint evidence forgery or fabrication.
The murder victim, a woman in her 20s, was found dead in a cheap flop-house apartment. The room barely had space to walk around the bed where the victim lay sprawled in a pool of coagulated blood. A cluttered dresser next to the bed had a pile of junk and costume jewelry on top of it. The crime scene technician, let’s call him Bob, took over 300 photographs in the cramped room, no doubt covering from all angles and capturing everything in the room in multiple photos.
Bob was an experienced, very competent CSI. He was deceased when I got the case, but I talked a coworker who had known him well.
After complete crime scene photos, Bob processed dozens of items in the room for latents. He took lifts from fixed surfaces. He took lifts from jewelry and other items on the dresser, even items I would characterize as less than marginally suitable for latents.
Several weeks after Bob had processed the scene, the detective called him back out. The detective pointed to a glass pitcher on top of the dresser and told Bob he had missed that on his first visit. The pitcher was smooth, clear glass, reminiscent of the Kool-Aid pitcher with the smiley face traced in condensation. Bob dutifully fingerprinted the pitcher.
Would it surprise you to learn that Bob developed a latent print from the pitcher he had “missed” on his initial visit? Would it surprise you to learn that the new latent was identified to a suspect the detective had only recently focused on?
Around 80 crime scene photos were introduced at trial. None showed the top of the dresser where the glass pitcher was “discovered” weeks after the murder. The photos not used in court were destroyed.
The fingerprint was not fabricated. I told the attorney the evidence had been planted. The defense attorney said that was no good for appeal and pressured me to say fabricated. I would not. The defense attorney rejected my advice for an appeal based on planted evidence. For all I know, the defendant is still in prison.
Bob’s coworker told me Bob was honest, but weak. Bob would have gone along with the investigator’s demand rather than challenge him.
For all I know, the suspect was the murderer. But Bob’s failure to challenge the detective was a major ethical lapse. The subsequent destruction of all the photographs that might have showed the top of the dresser at the time of the murder was criminal destruction of evidence. My conclusions and suggestions came to naught.
As a crime scene technician, if you have reason to believe the crime scene has been tampered with by another officer, you have a responsibility to report that up your chain of command and to mention it in your report. To fail to do so is a major ethical failure.