Introduction
The fact that the police failed to preserve potentially useful evidence is not a reason for refusing to proceed with the legal process. Moreover, the cancellation of the trial will not occur if the accused does not prove the dishonest behavior of the police.
Facts
The victim in this criminal process is a 10-year-old boy. According to him, he was bullied and raped by middle-aged men. After the incident, the child was taken to the hospital, where a survey was carried out and a sperm sample was taken from the rectum. The police took away the child’s clothes as evidence, however did not refrigerate them. Later analyzes by the forensic scientist showed that it was impossible to establish the identity of the assailant from the boy’s clothes and his rectal swab (Arizona v. Youngblood, 1988). However, the child confirmed that Larry Youngblood in the picture shown is the rapist. At the trial, the experts found that the defendant could have been acquitted due to the fact that the police were unable to save the sperm samples. However, the court found the defendant guilty of sexual abuse and child molestation. After that, a petition was submitted to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the guilty verdict. According to the court decision, the state violated the obligation to preserve the samples.
Issue
Can a State’s failure in preserving biological material be grounds for refusing to comply with the proceedings?
Answer
No.
Conclusion
There was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the police against the defendant. However, failure to retain samples of material is not a reason to deny legal proceedings. The court was able to establish that all necessary tests were carried out immediately after the arrest of the defendant. Although there was a possibility that the materials could help the defendant exonerate himself, they were not used as principal evidence. As a result, the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned.
Reference
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333. (1988).