Stogie1020 wrote:right, but if the evidence is "all burned up" there's no inculpatory evidence to start with, so charges gone and no one is innocently convicted. What am I missing?
Not much.
Hypothetical example: Boy shoots a Woman there are three (supposed) witnesses who all testify the Boy did it. Boy denies it. Police seize the gun as evidence and arrest the Boy. it. As it turns out, the fingerprints on the gun belong to one of the "witnesses," who was the real shooter. Boy, who is innocent, doesn't get the chance to inspect and take fingerprints from the gun even though the state did. State's lab work is shoddy. The three witnesses all testify the Boy shot the Woman and he gets convicted...
Real life example: Lab tests blood of driver and charges with DUI. Lab evidence is destroyed. Driver is convicted based on cop's observations and road side testing alone. I was on that jury and we found him guilty.
(You have to have found stuff the other side didn't- right?