And how do you go about showing that in court if you don't conduct an investigation?
"Your honor I saw them playing with the computer, I don't know what they were doing but I want this case thrown out!!!!!"
I agree case dismissed and don't play with the computers anymore
LOL
Wouldn't a more sensible approach be to take possession of the computer and document all the names of the people that were standing around, playing with the computer, or turning on the computer,then match those names with the schedule sheet and proceed from there?
The local law enforcement was told to keep it by the person who went to pick it up simply because he knew that with he viewed at the station was enough to throw out the computer.
I think you are missing the point of my comment. You claim he went there with the purpose of removing the computer, you seem to think this is routine. A defense examiner will not ever be allowed to remove evidence, no matter what it is, from police custody. They are typically given copies of the evidence files, or at the most (and usually only under court order) allowed to acquire the original data at the Police Department and only under the direct supervision of the property officer. The chain of custody is a very basic legal premise, and if a department doesn't understand this, and allows evidence to be removed, then their problems go much farther than losing a few cases. The fact that you don't understand this leads me to doubt your claims, and to doubt whether you have any experience examining data for a defense attorney.
I also agree with armresl's point that in any case where such a gross mishandling of evidence occurred a "plea agreement" is out of the question. Attorney's plea cases when they believe it benefits their client.
Further there is certainly some concrete proof of this rampant problem you have witnessed, in many cases, not just the one concerning the ongoing civil case.
Please understand I'm not trying to be hard on you, but you made a serious allegation frankly, and one with some holes in it.
To address your concerns….
Yes, 95% of the time the police will give us copies of the EnCase evidence files on DVD.
The case I was making reference to occured while my co-worker was working for the government. Their agency went to take custody of the computer from local lawforcement. He knew what damage had been done so he reported it back to his superiors since there was no point in investigating the machine. The person who picked it up was not apart of the defense, as they were working for the government. Sorry, I should have been more specific with that.
As for the plea agreement… because of the fact the computer had been booted, all charges relating to the computer were no longer pursued. Since the computer related charges were not an issue, he then was offered a agreement by the DA on an unrelated felony charge. If it was not for the local police booting the machine, those charges would have probably gone through and he would more than likely be in jail for a while. It benefited the DA to get him on what he could, as well as the person charged.
I realize that my accusations are serious, but I do stand by them. I do not believe that local law enforcement are always capable of taking custody of a computer properly.
Based on this comment
"because of the fact the computer had been booted, all charges relating to the computer were no longer pursued"
PLEASE PLEASE give me a case where that is all you have PLEASE. Way too much is relied upon if that is the crux of the case. You are in theory saying that it doesn't matter what is on the computer, the MAC times, residing point of the files, how many users there were, etc. but just that someone booted it up.
When is the next case that you guys are going to testify in, I would like to watch how things are done seriously………
BTW that was not directed at Greg.