SANCTIONS AND SPOLIATION: A closer look into Making A Murderer
If you have found yourself (as I have) captivated by the Netflix original documentary “Making A Murder”, you certainly see the importance and value of evidence in a legal action. Evidence – or the lack thereof – can either make or break your case. For example, when police investigators “discovered” the keys for a victim in Steven Avery’s house, that was one of the most compelling pieces of physical evidence linking Steven Avery to the crimes he was charged with. What’s more, it was his DNA on those keys that was likely the most condemning evidence of all.
But what about the victim’s DNA? Shouldn’t the victims DNA be on her keys?
The answer is maybe. If the keys were found to be tampered with and Steven Avery’s DNA added to those keys, not only would that evidence potentially exonerate Steven Avery from the crimes he committed, but it would also inculpate the investigators who discovered those keys, as well as others.
While we allow the story of Steven Avery to unfold, we have to ask about evidence in our own cases. Most of us do not have kinds of challenges Steven Avery faced in his trials. Most of our legal concerns are limited to civil lawsuits.
So what remedy do we have available to us when our adversaries may have tampered with or destroyed evidence that we need to prove our case or disprove our adversary’s case in the civil context? In addition to discovery sanctions, we have additional remedies for “Spoliation of Evidence.”
With regard to discovery sanctions, almost each and every state has specific rules regarding the preservation and production of evidence. For example, Rule 4:23-5 of the New Jersey Court Rules provides an outline for how to obtain sanctions, including dismissal of the Complaint or suppression of an Answer and Defenses, for failure to appropriately produce evidence requested.
Additionally, where appropriate, a Court may enter an Order allowing the jury (or the Judge) to accept as true that the contents of a document or the state of a piece of physical evidence is what the party seeking that Order says it is. Courts have ordered adverse inferences for spoliation of evidence, especially when that conduct is found to be intentional or reckless. To obtain an adverse inference due to spoliation of evidence, the moving party must show the evidence was essential and the spoliation was the result of an intentional act or bad faith. For example, in a product’s liability case involving a defective safe guard on power tool that malfunctioned, where the defendant destroys the power tool preventing the Plaintiff from having an expert analyze it to opine that it was defective, the Plaintiff may be entitled to an Order stating that the jury can find that the power took was defective without further discussion or deliberation.
While these remedies may not fully cure the harm caused by the destruction of evidence, it may go a long way towards making a litigant whole after the intentional or reckless conduct that resulted in the destruction of a key piece of evidence.
We hope you found the information provided in this article helpful to your everyday life and business. Please free to reach out to Sean Callagy or the Callagy Law team at any time for questions you may have concerning personal and business matters. Callagy Law’s headquarters is located conveniently in Paramus, NJ. Beyond the scope of information, Sean Callagy has developed multiple areas of business legal practice and business coaching, if you need help with anything, please reach out to us by calling 201-261-1700 or by emailing us here. Feel free to connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally you can subscribe to our daily videos on YouTube by clicking here.
Learn More About Callagy Law Here:
THE REMEDY FOR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE | Callagy Law
No comments:
Post a Comment