The Crewe murders In June 1970 a couple from
Pukekawa,
Lower Waikato, New Zealand, were killed and their bodies dumped in the
Waikato River.
Arthur Allan Thomas, a local farmer, was twice convicted of their murders but following massive publicity was later given a
royal pardon. Two bullet cases presented by senior detectives Bruce Hutton and Lenrick Johnston were crucial evidence for the conviction. In 1980, after Thomas's pardon a
royal commission into the convictions concluded "Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston planted the shellcase, exhibit 350 in the Crewe garden, and that they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas's rifle had been used for the killings."
Killing of Bernard Whitehurst In 1975, after the shooting death of Bernard Whitehurst by a police officer in
Montgomery, Alabama who incorrectly identified Whitehurst as the suspect in the robbery of a neighborhood grocery store, there was a police
cover-up that included police officers planting a gun on him from the police evidence room. The coroner relied on police reports that Whitehurst was killed by a bullet fired through the chest. After an investigation by the local newspaper and local attorney Donald Watkins raised questions about the facts of the case, six months later, the District Attorney James Evans ordered the body to be exhumed and an autopsy to be performed. No police officer was convicted of a crime. Forty years later, the Montgomery City Council passed a resolution that formally expressed regret for the shooting and cover-up. After his release, Rivera's attorneys asked the courts to order
genetic testing on a piece of evidence the prosecution had tried to use at his trial in 1993. Rivera's shoes had blood on them, which the prosecution argued belonged to Holly. The prosecution withdrew them prior to his first trial when it was discovered that the shoes were not available for sale anywhere in the United States until after the murder. In 2015, Rivera's attorney sought further forensic testing on the shoes. DNA analysis indicated that the blood indeed belonged to Holly, but also contained another genetic sample; one that matched the semen sample. Rivera's defense team insisted that this was proof not only that the blood was planted, but that the real killer's DNA was inadvertently
planted as well. The DNA has yet to be matched to an individual, but has been linked to DNA from another home invasion and murder. The man convicted of that crime also claims to be wrongfully convicted. Following his
exoneration, he was awarded $20 million USD, the largest wrongful conviction settlement in US history.
New York State Police Troop C scandal In the
New York State Police Troop C scandal of 1993, Craig D. Harvey, a New York State Police trooper, was charged with fabricating evidence. Harvey admitted he and another trooper lifted fingerprints from items the suspect, John Spencer, touched while in Troop C headquarters during booking. He attached the fingerprints to evidence cards and later claimed that he had pulled the fingerprints from the scene of the murder. The forged evidence was used during trial and John Spencer was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. After the truth came out, it was discovered that they had been falsifying evidence in cases for many years. At least three officers were convicted. Every case the department had been involved in had to be reinvestigated.
FBI scandal In the 1990s, the
fingerprint,
DNA, and explosive units of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory had written reports confirming local police department theories without actually performing the work. Such laws and regulatory procedures stipulating the conditions under which evidence can be handled and manipulated fall under a body of due process statutes called
chain of custody rules. It is crucial for law enforcement agencies to scrupulously collect, handle and transfer evidence in order to avoid its falsification. In most jurisdictions, chain of evidence rules require that the transfer of criminal evidence be handled by as few persons as possible. To prevent error or improper tampering, chain of evidence rules also stipulate that those authorized to experiment with collected evidence document the nature, time, date and duration of their handling.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis was decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 2023. In this case, the defendants filed false evidence with their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The false evidence was claimed by the defendant to have been a request for a gay wedding site that was submitted to the defendant's web site. The web site request was claimed to have been submitted on the afternoon of September 21, 2016; this was after the
10th Circuit found in favor of the State of
Colorado (July 26, 2021), but before the defendant filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court (September 24, 2021). In an article in
The New Republic, reporter Melissa Gira Grant found that the contact information in the false evidence was a real person, but they had never submitted a request to 303 Creative, and in fact, they were already married, and not gay. The lawyers for Colorado said the evidence was irrelevant to the case, and neither the majority opinion nor the dissent of the Supreme Court ruling mentioned the false evidence. Although the defendant submitted the request as evidence, they claim to have no knowledge of whether the request was real, using the claim of a web site submission as plausible deniability. Further, the defendant claimed fear that responding to the request to see if it was valid might result in the state of Colorado suing her. The case was related to the forgiveness of federal
student loans by the Biden administration that was challenged by multiple states. Much of this case hinged on a claim that the
Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) would be financially harmed by the student loan forgiveness. However, internal documents from the MOHELA show that it did not file the suit, made no claim of financial harm, and had nothing to do with the case. The evidence submitted by the Missouri
Attorney General was a fabrication that MOHELA did not participate in. Despite the reporting that the evidence of financial harm to MOHELA was false, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the
Biden administration. ==See also==