Defense investigators use crime scene examinations to prove factual impossibility by identifying discrepancies between the prosecution’s theory and the physical or temporal reality of the scene. This process often involves reconstructing the event to demonstrate that the crime could not have occurred as described by the “accuser” or state witnesses.
Investigators achieve this through the following methods:
1. Establishing Contradictory Timelines
Investigators visit the scene—sometimes weeks or months later—to form a clear picture of the environment and identify areas neglected by initial law enforcement. By analyzing the physical layout, they can establish timelines that show factual inconsistencies in the state’s case. For example, a thorough investigation into distances and travel times can prove that a defendant could not have been at the scene at the time the crime was committed.
2. Proving Physical Impossibility
Crime scene data can be used to show that the mechanical or physical requirements of the state’s theory are impossible.
- Reconstructing Events: Using photography and video, investigators document the scene to reconstruct the sequence of events.
- Physical Limitations: In one legal case, defense counsel was found ineffective for failing to investigate how a defendant’s physical condition (impotency) made it “extremely unlikely, if not impossible” for him to have committed a crime as the victim described.
3. Geographic Alibi Verification
Investigators use crime scene data to support alibis by showing the defendant was physically elsewhere. In one complex capital murder case, an investigator conducted a methodical 11-month investigation that proved a client was not even in the same state when the crime occurred, effectively demonstrating geographic impossibility.
4. Forensic Re-examination and Diagrams
The Component Method of criminal defense investigation lists “Crime Scene Examination, Diagrams & Photography” as a core step to ensure a thorough defense.
- Diagrams and Sketches: These provide orientation and show the relationship between objects, which helps clarify issues and can reveal that the state’s witnesses’ accounts are physically impossible from their claimed vantage points.
- Expert Analysis: Investigators often use forensic experts to re-examine evidence from the scene to identify procedural errors, such as incorrect Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) procedures, which can prove the state’s factual conclusions were wrong.
5. Uncovering Missing Physical Evidence
Defense investigators look for evidence that law enforcement failed to locate or examine. Finding exculpatory evidence at the scene that was previously undisclosed or overlooked can rebut the state’s narrative and provide a factual basis for innocence. In one case, a thorough review of the scene and discovery disclosed “serious flaws” that led to a pre-trial dismissal.