Screwdriver Scene

VI. The Screwdriver Discovery Was Not Documented As Cleanly As the State Suggests

Officer Richard Novak testified that his body camera was active when he approached the Losee building. He was accompanied by a man in civilian clothing who appeared to be armed and displayed a badge.

• the man’s name;
• his agency;
• his assignment;
• or why he was present beyond providing backup.

He testified that the unidentified man carried a handgun. Source: rev.com This was not some peripheral public area. This was the building and rooftop the State says contained evidence of a capital offense. Every person entering that scene matters. Every officer or unidentified badge-holder must be accounted for.

The admitted screwdriver photograph was also not a contemporaneous image of the officer’s first untouched observation. The photograph contained a yellow evidence marker that had been placed after discovery. Officer Novak acknowledged the marker was not present when he first encountered the screwdriver. The defense challenged the photograph’s foundation because the State initially had not established who took it or exactly when it was taken. Source: rev.com Therefore, the photograph establishes what the screwdriver looked like after evidence personnel had entered and marked the scene.

• the precise untouched condition in which it was first found;
• who approached it before photography;
• who placed the marker;
• whether it was moved;
• the complete sequence of access;
• or what occurred during any body-camera gap.

The defense need not prove planting or misconduct. The State bears the responsibility to present a clean, documented evidentiary sequence. Instead, its own officer testified that he entered with an unidentified armed badge-holder whom he could not identify. That is not complete scene accountability.