Yet another internet conspiracy theory. The evidence phase is over. Was the defense really that bad?
They only had 6 weeks to analyse the lab work because the prosecution violated their rights to a fair trial. The SAL, quantification report and all the raw dated should have been given to them at the pre-trial not a partial handover half way through the trial.
They weren't allowed to call any experts at Nencini....remember? All defense requests were denied except for the photo of his fingernails.
Like I've said many times, Italian courts are kangaroo courts.
The American Bar Association On DNA Disclosure
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...n_archive/crimjust_standards_dnaevidence.html
In connection with disclosure, American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: DNA Evidence, 3d ed. © 2007 states as follows:
Part IV: Pre-trial Proceedings
(a) The prosecutor should be required, within a specified and reasonable time prior to trial, to make available to the defense the following information and material relating to DNA evidence:
(i) laboratory reports as provided in Standard 3.3;
(ii) if different from or not contained in any laboratory report, a written description of the substance of the proposed testimony of each expert, the experts opinion, and the underlying basis of that opinion;
(iii) the laboratory case file and case notes;
(iv) a curriculum vitae for each testifying expert and for each person involved in the testing;
(v) the written material specified in Standard 3.1(a);
(vi) reports of all proficiency examinations of each testifying expert and each person involved in the testing, with further information on proficiency testing discoverable on a showing of particularized need;
(vii) the chain of custody documents specified in Standard 2.5;
(viii) all raw electronic data produced during testing;
(ix) reports of laboratory contamination and other laboratory problems affecting testing procedures or results relevant to the evaluation of the procedures and test results obtained in the case and corrective actions taken in response; and
(x) a list of collected items that there is reason to believe contained DNA evidence but have been destroyed or lost, or have otherwise become unavailable;
(xi) material or information within the prosecutors possession or control, including laboratory information or material, that would tend to negate the guilt of the defendant or reduce the punishment of the defendant.
Additionally, the document complete with explanatory commentary is available at the same link.
Quoting from the commentary : Comprehensive discovery is critical in scientific evidence cases, and DNA discovery is no exception. The National Academies 1992 Report recommended extensive discovery in DNA cases: All data and laboratory records generated by analysis of DNA samples should be made freely available to all parties. Such access is essential for evaluating the analysis. (Page 95 of the document/88 of the numbered pages).
In the Meredith Kercher murder trials, the withholding of data supporting (or rather failing to support) forensic evidence, in US terms would amount to a breach of Brady disclosure requirements:
the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses.