January 9, 2009
State Police to probe blood mishandling
The New York State Police internal affairs bureau is investigating the mishandling of blood evidence in Martin Heidgen's second-degree murder trial after the sample was thrown out of the trial yesterday, a spokesman for the agency said.
State Police Superintendent Wayne Bennett didn't return a message left yesterday at his office seeking comment. But Lt. Glenn Miner, the spokesman, announced the internal inquiry yesterday.
The sample, which prosecutors say has a blood-alcohol content of .28 percent, and testimony about Heidgen's blood-alcohol level were thrown out by Acting State Supreme Court Justice Alan Honorof.
It marked the second time on Long Island this year State Police mishandled blood evidence in a trial dealing with a fatal drunken driving crash. In January, Anthony Raffio, 25, of Wantagh, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of vehicular manslaughter after State Police said they improperly sealed a blood test and failed to complete documents tracking his sample.
The inability to use the blood sample will not sink the case, but it is a tremendous setback for prosecutors, legal experts said.
Eric Naiburg, a defense attorney in Central Islip, said there are still other solid arguments prosecutors can make: Heidgen was driving the wrong way when he crashed into the limousine, and an innocent child died. "In a lot of cases, you don't need the smoking gun, and this might be one of them," Naiburg said.
The prosecution has other evidence to lean on, including testimony that Heidgen told police he drank heavily before the crash and authorities who smelled alcohol at the crash scene, experts said.
But the .28 percent reading - more than three times the legal limit of .08 percent - was compelling evidence, said Mary Elizabeth Abbate, a defense attorney in Deer Park. "That's a very, very high reading," she said. "When you throw that in with other factors, it can be very persuasive evidence to a jury."
William Petrillo, a Rockville Centre defense attorney, said the prosecution doesn't need "intoxication to prove murder."
The prosecution could have identified this problem before the trial began by "bringing in witnesses and thoroughly going over everything," Petrillo said.
"So, it was either missed or ignored," he said.
Mixx it!
Copyright © 2009, Newsday Inc.
Popular stories
- The Lesters
- The lethal lure of summer
- Timeline: Steroids in baseball
- Rick Maese: Ex-players making gains on benefits
- Still rockin'
- Los Angeles County
- Tribune Co.
- Dance
