Do investigators have a legal obligation to remain impartial in an investigation, and should they fail to do so…can the defense make a case for dismissal?
EX: From the first episode of “Forensics, You Decide”.
Investigators and forensics ‘experts’ maintain during a suicide/or murder that the blood spray couldn’t have reached the defendant at 6 feet, the dead man has no powder burns on his hands, and it would be nearly impossible for a man to shoot himself in the back of the head with a Desert Eagle.
At NO time during the program did the question of whether or not the defendant had powder on his hands and at no time did the question of fingerprints on the weapon come up. So for the purposes of my question, let’s assume the following:
The investigators flat out did not check the for fingerprints nor did they test the defendants hand for powder. Can the defense claim the investigators deliberately were looking for a murder, not a suicide and once the investigators felt they had a strong enough case…they ‘declined’ to do any more testing. Can the defense at that point move for dismissal?
FTR, it took the jury about 3 hours to find the defendant innocent once the defense brought in their own experts to say, “You can easily shoot yourself in the back of your head, by…wait for it…turning your head.” And, “It’s a Desert Eagle, are you crazy! Blood can spray up to six feet and well beyond.”