By MICHAEL HILL and PAT EATON-ROBB, Associated Press Writers – Sat Sep 19, 11:41 pm ET
NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Defending a Yale University lab technician charged with murder against what appears to be a mountain of forensic evidence might mean trying to convince jurors that the crime scene was contaminated because police didn't immediately shut down the lab where the victim was found, legal experts said.
Raymond Clark III is charged with murder for the death of Yale graduate student Annie Le. Le vanished from a research building in Yale's medical school complex on Sept. 8; her body was found hidden in a wall recess five days later, on what was to be her wedding day.
Police charged Clark after reviewing some 300 pieces of evidence, including DNA samples taken from him a day before he was arrested. Clark's bond was set at $3 million, and he did not enter a plea.
Officials found DNA from Le and Clark in the ceiling and in the recess where Le's body was found, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told The Hartford Courant newspaper on condition of anonymity.
The evidence is so overwhelming that police believe they don't necessarily have to uncover Clark's motive for the killing to convince jurors of his guilt, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
That likely leaves Clark's attorneys with going after how that evidence was gathered — rather than what it showed — and have prosecutors defend their decision not to seal the lab building until Le's body was found.
"You attempt to attack the investigative process as well as the conclusions," said William Dow III, a prominent New Haven-based defense lawyer, who does not represent anyone in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment