• Newsletters
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
°
Monday, September 25, 2017
View complete forecast
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.

Good news -- case will not get tossed on a technicality

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.The Associated Press
Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:01 am
Police have forever complained about suspects getting off on a technicality. Officers spend countless hours amassing evidence and building a case, only to watch in dismay as some judge sets the accused free because an “i” wasn’t dotted or a “t” wasn’t crossed. Somebody wasn’t read his rights in a timely manner. There was a minor flaw in a search warrant. There was no real probable cause for a stop-and-frisk. How can the public have faith in the criminal justice system when such travesties occur?It is more than a little ironic, then, that the latest failed attempt to get a case tossed on a technicality was instituted by a police officer’s defense team. Suspended Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard, accused of having twice the legal blood alcohol limit when he crashed his police cruiser into three motorcycles, killing one cyclist and critically injuring two others. He wanted two vials of his blood dismissed as evidence because the blood draw for one vial didn’t follow IMPD protocols, and the second vial sat unrefrigerated in a police property room for five months before being tested.

The case was moved to Allen County because of pretrial publicity, and Superior Court Judge John Surbeck has ruled that both vials are admissible. That doesn’t mean Bisard’s claim that contaminated, untrustworthy evidence has compromised the entire investigation is a doomed defense case. His attorneys will still be able to argue that officials’ mistakes have left the state without conclusive proof of an impaired condition.

But Surbeck’s ruling does mean the public will see a trial based on substantive issues instead of mere technicalities, and that is a welcome outcome.

Those technicalities are there for a reason, of course. Our criminal justice system is based on a presumption of innocence that the state must demolish for a conviction. Insisting on strict compliance with procedure is a way to keep the state from taking shortcuts to that demolition. It is important not just for the cases at hand but to instill confidence in the pubic for all the cases to come. We must believe that if we are ever accused, there will be no shortcuts.

But fanatical devotion to procedure to the point that all common sense is lost can create a lack of confidence as well. Never mind all those technicalities, observers will think, can we please just talk about whether the accused really did what the state says he did?

It is indeed a fine line to walk, and we dare not stop paying attention to how it is walked.

Comments

News-Sentinel.com reserves the right to remove any content appearing on its website. Our policy will be to remove postings that constitute profanity, obscenity, libel, spam, invasion of privacy, impersonation of another, or attacks on racial, ethnic or other groups. For more information, see our user rules page.
comments powered by Disqus