Page 76 - CFDI Guide
P. 76

There are four possible findings to the CFDIs review and analysis of the official investigations, which may be

          different for each:
             1) The official investigation was competent, with the official findings consistent with the facts and

             evidence; or
             2) The official investigation was not competent, with the official findings consistent with the facts and

             evidence; or
             3) The official investigation was competent, with the official findings not consistent with the facts and

             evidence; or
             4) The official investigation was not competent, with the official findings not consistent with the facts

             and evidence.



          Most often we find the second and third to be true. The purpose is not to find fault or errors – the purpose
          is to find the map to the truth. What the information, facts, and evidence tell – and how it can be used by

          the  CFDI  and  defense  team.  This  includes  in  defense  strategy,  and  most  important  to  the  CFDI  –  the
          investigative strategy. Start with what you know, then work to what you do not know – don’t put the cart

          before the horse. Too often an investigator will decide to conduct a full investigation without knowing
          anything about what other investigations tell or don’t tell.



            I.   THE CORONER / MEDICAL EXAMINER OR OTHER MEDICAL INVESTIGATION

          It  is  important  the  CFDI  not  overlook  this  component  of  the  investigations  which  are  involved  in  the

          prosecution of criminal offenses; or the medical provider equivalent in non-fatal cases resulting in criminal
          charges. The information, facts, and evidence here may be the most important. We recommend reviewing
                                                                                              1
          “Death Investigation: A Guide for the Scene Investigator” from the National Institute of Justice.



          The essential difference between a ‘coroner’ and ‘medical examiner’ system is the former is elected and the
          latter is appointed. Further, the former may be an untrained lay person and the latter is a qualified forensic

          pathologist. There are jurisdictions, such as the training and work experience of the authors, in which both
          apply – the elected coroner is a forensic pathologist. For the purposes of this course, the terms may be used

          interchangeably.









          1  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/234457.pdf


                                                    62 | P a g e
   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81