Chain Of Custody

Another example of a procedure that is carried out at a crime scene in the collection and preservation of evidence is the use of an exhibits log, which is also known as the chain of custody. This procedure is used once a scene of crime officer has collected evidence at a crime scene.

The evidence collected by the scenes of crime officers would be handed into an exhibits officer who would be present at the crime scene, the exhibits officer would then log information about the evidence, such as what it was and the submitting officer’s name and date and time it was received onto an exhibits log sheet. The reason this procedure is carried out is so that if the evidence is received in the laboratory and appears to have been tampered with or the evidence is not received at all, there is a record that can trace back who last handled and received the evidence, as this will be recorded on the chain of custody. This therefore allows any evidence to be traced back to see in whose possession or charge the evidence was under when it was tampered with or lost. It also means that the evidence can be traced back to the scenes of crime officer that found and collected it at the crime scene.

As discussed above, the use of a chain of custody in regards to the procedure of collecting evidence can be positive and effective within a case, this is because it can help lead to a guilty individual being prosecuted and sentenced for committing a crime, as the evidence collected will be seen as reliable and trustworthy as all relevant documents relating to each piece of evidence can be provided. However in the case of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman mistakes were made regarding the use of the chain of custody. Firstly items were not correctly checked into the exhibits officers in charge of the chain of custody, this can be identified as very few blood swabs were down in the chain of evidence as being submitted for testing, however a much larger number of swabs actually arrived at the laboratory to be tested – therefore meaning that the majority had not gone through the chain of custody. This can be seen as negative as if the items were not logged into the chain of custody any of the evidence could have been taken or gone missing and none of the detectives or SOCO’s would have known.

Also a number of items of evidence including the blood sample taken for comparison from OJ Simpson were carried around by officers for considerable amounts of time before being passed into the chain of custody, whereas as soon as the officers were handed this evidence it should have been logged immediately. This error allowed Simpson’s defence to again argue that the evidence linking Simpson to the murders could easily have been planted or contaminated in order to frame him.