Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Should the St Louis Circuit Attorney be charged with evidence tampering? Or filing false charges?
my2cents

Should the St Louis Circuit Attorney be charged with evidence tampering? Or filing false charges?

The couple charged with Unlawful use of a weapon charge is a class E felony, which can carry a sentence of up to four years in prison and a fine of $10,000. 

The wife's small handgun was not operable at the time. The  Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner had the lab repair the gun so the charges could be filed. 

False charges, False evidence.   Someone should be arrested but who?



https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d

Posted - July 22, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6023
    The Attorney as well as any lab worker(s) that did the work should be charged with "tampering with evidence", and fired.

    Also, were I a defense attorney who had ANY evidence go through that lab, I would immediately be filing for the case to be reviewed on the knowledge that the lab tampers with evidence.  Same if my client was prosecuted by that attorney.

    Were I someone who had been convicted on evidence through that lab, or under that attorney, I would be filing a class-action lawsuit for the same reason.

    Were I a judge, I would order the lab shut down until such time as all former and existing evidence could be reviewed for tampering.


    EDIT: Not sure about the laws there, but in WA it wouldn't matter if the gun was operable or not.  Nor if it were real, or a toy.  It wouldn't even matter if any gun was actually seen.  All that would matter is if the person being threatened reasonably believed it was a working firearm. This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at July 22, 2020 6:11 PM MDT
      July 22, 2020 2:48 PM MDT
    3

  • 19937
    Ditto for your EDIT here in New York.
      July 22, 2020 4:35 PM MDT
    2

  • 34466
    In Missouri we have the Castle law. Under this law we are allowed to defend with our home and property with deadly force if necessary.  With not requirement or duty to retreat. 

    I do not know how the law they are charged with is worded. But in the CA was specific in her wording claiming the weapon was fireable at the time of the incident.  Which leads me to believe it matters for the law to be applicable.
      July 22, 2020 6:07 PM MDT
    0