Chain Of Custody In Criminal Investigation

The importance and relevance of chain of custody to criminal investigations and judicial outcomes

Chain of custody is defined by Saferstein (2015), as a sequential documentation, that shows custody, control, analysis, handling and the nature of physical or electrical evidence. Chain of custody is a model that is utilised by the police during criminal investigations to demonstrate that the evidence has been handled in a manner that does not destroy the integrity of the evidence (Houck & Siegel, 2015). According to Spikmans (2015), obeying the standard procedures of the chain of custody model can make sure that the evidence can endure any questioning of authenticity and integrity during judicial proceedings. Houck & Siegel (2015) stated that
According to Horvath & Meesig (1996), the number of people that examine, or handle the evidence can be high; as a result, the forensic examiners and criminal investigators are instructed to document the examinations, using the chain of custody form, to prevent unnecessary testing, reducing the possibility of potential contamination. During the investigation OJ Simpson’s wife, Nicole Brown, evidence was unnecessarily handled by multiple investigators, which reduced the validity of the DNA test results (Houck & Siegel, 2015). During the investigation, the detectives made sure that gloves were worn during evidence handling, however, because the evidence was unnecessarily handled, skin and hair cells, that naturally fall off, fell onto the evidence leading to contamination (Houck & Siegel, 2015). During the trial, results of DNA test showed that skin and hair fibres, that belonged to several key detectives, were on the murder weapon; as a result of contamination, the police was accused by the media, and the jury of evidence tampering and trying to frame Mr Simpson (Wood, 2003). The evidence suggests that the chain of custody model prevents any unnecessary handling of the evidence that can lead to the contamination of vital evidence. This means that the chain of custody model can preserve evidence in an effective way
In the case of Sam Sheppard, a doctor who was accused of killing his wife claimed he was innocent, however, due to an impression on a pillow in an outline of a piece of surgical equipment, and blood spatter patterns on the carpet, he was found guilty (James et al., 2013). Ten years later, Sam Sheppard’s attorney wondered if the blood spatter pattern was created by Sam beating the victim, like the prosecution said, or was it created another way (James et al., 2013). Since the analysis of the blood spatter pattern was correctly utilised by the chain of custody model, all the information regarding that piece of evidence was available; therefore, the attorney decided to re-test the evidence again, using a well-known blood pattern analyst, Dr Paul Kirk (Saferstein 2015). Dr Paul Kirk concluded from the spatter pattern that the killer was left-handed, therefore, due to the fact that Sam Sheppard was right-handed, he could not have been the killer; as a result, the defence commenced a re-trial, during which the defence displayed the new evidence to the jury, demonstrating that the previous examinations were wrong (did not have integrity) (Pearson, 2006). Due to the lack of integrity of the evidence, the jury found Sam Sheppard, not guilty (Saferstein, 2015). The evidence suggests that