State's destruction of evidence- Due Process violation.

Orlando, Florida criminal defense attorney David A. Faulkner represents clients with regard to a variety of criminal charges. In some cases, Mr. Faulkner has determined through his investigative work that the Government lost or destroyed critical evidence that might have helped to prove the client's innocence with regard to the criminal charge the client was facing.

Recently, a client was accused of having committed a burglary. The only evidence against the client was a single fingerprint identified as that of the client found on an item located at the scene of the burglary. However, law enforcement failed to preserve the item on which the fingerprint was found. The defense in the case was that the accused had frequented the location of the burglary on many occasions in the course of lawful activities and that the fingerprint on the item in question was from such a lawful visit to the location rather than from the occasion of the burglary. The alleged victim claimed, however, that the item in question would have been placed at the location of the burglary only after the accused had had any occasion to lawfully be on the premises. As a result, the item on which the fingerprint had been found was a critical part of the defense case.

When the Government loses or destroys evidence, there may be a due process violation of law. To show such a due process violation of law, the accused must demonstrate that the item that was failed to be preserved by the Government would have been exculpatory (meaning that it would have demonstrated the accused's innocence or would have assisted in impeaching the credibility of a material witness or called into question material evidence). If the accused can demonstrate that the evidence in question would have been exculpatory if preserved, then there has been a due process violation of law and the case may be dismissed or other remedies such as the exclusion of evidence may be appropriate.

If the accused can only demonstrate that the evidence MIGHT have been exculpatory if preserved, then the accused must meet the further burden of demonstrating that the Government acted in BAD FAITH by not preserving the evidence.

In the situation referenced above, the court found that the evidence in question might have been exculpatory to the accused and that the Government acted in bad faith. As a result, the Government was disallowed the use of the fingerprint against the accused and the case was ultimately dropped by the Government.

If you, a friend, a family member or other loved one is facing a criminal charge and need assistance, then contact Faulkner Legal Group, P.A. today for a FREE CONSULTATION.