Originally Posted by jojo
The argument is simple. The reliability of the test can be affected by how the sample is stored and handled. MLB did not guarantee that wasn't the case with Braun because they did not comply with collectively bargained guidelines to ensure this wouldn't be an issue.
In any given case, the existence of a rule to prevent a possible mistake does not mean a violation of that rule proves that mistake to be possible.
For your argument to fly, the Defense team has to present one plausible theory as to how it COULD have happened that would not be rebutted by the other facts in the case, otherwise they are left with only a technicality and a prophylatic ruling. (i.e. yes he did it, but to punish the accuser for not following the rules, we are going to let him walk).
For example, a murder suspect confesses to a murder, and as part of that confession, takes the police to where the body is hidden, and with the body he also hid video and audio recordings of him actually committing the murder. If the original confession was collected in violation of his 5th amendment rights, then everything is excluded (confession, body and tapes) and the guy walks even though we would be absolutely certain that he committed the murder. Why? A prophylatic ruling on a technicality to protect the system.
I can use the same fifth amendment rule to rebut your example. The Miranda warnings exist to prevent suspects from giving involuntary confessions. We make cops say the warnings to ensure every suspect is aware of their rights prior to confessing. Imagine a police officer does not provide the proper warning to a suspect and instead jumps right into interrogation. In response, the suspect confesses.
Your argument is that this confession should be treated as involuntary because the rules violation made an involuntary confession possible. However, if the government can show that minutes before the interrogation, the accused, a law professor, had just finished giving a class on the fifth amendment rights of suspects, this possibility would be eliminated.
In this case, the evidence appears to rebut the possibility of mishandling or tampering linked to or cause by the rule violation.
One final example... dang am I wordy today... if the rule said that the collector was required to check Ryan Braun's driver's license prior to the test to ensure he was testing the right person and he failed to check Braun's driver's license, would that make the sample he collected invalid even if the lab was able to do DNA testing on the sample to verify it was Braun's?