- 10 -
that any of the handwriting in the photocopied pages is
petitioner’s.
Respondent’s sole witness was a former Akron Police Department
officer who had been in charge of petitioner’s criminal
investigation and who, since leaving the Akron Police Department in
1991, has owned and operated his own consulting business.
Respondent’s witness acknowledged that some of the handwriting and
markings in the photocopied pages were his own, apparently made in
the course of his analyzing the notebook at some unspecified time
and in unspecified circumstances. Respondent’s witness (who was not
present when petitioner was arrested and the notebook was allegedly
seized) was unable to authenticate the photocopied pages or even to
identify them satisfactorily.9 Respondent established no chain of
custody of the notebook or notebooks–-a concern that gains in
significance given that the photocopied pages appear to be an
incomplete and corrupted version of the original document or
documents.
Because of these various evidentiary infirmities, the Court
sustained petitioner’s objection to the admission of the photocopied
pages into evidence. On brief, respondent has not sought to revisit
this evidentiary ruling and appears to have abandoned any reliance
9 Respondent’s witness identified the photocopied pages as a
true copy of a notebook seized from petitioner’s briefcase at his
arrest. Internal handwritten notations in the photocopied pages,
however, identify approximately the last half of the photocopied
pages as having been found at an address other than the place of
petitioner’s arrest.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011