Abstract
Current writing on "evidence tampering"--inclusive of the destruction, fabrication, and suppression of evidence--creates the impression that our system of litigation is in a state of fundamental disrepair. This Article suggests that this perception may merely reflect defects in the conventional view of trial's purpose. The conventional view sees trial as a stand-alone device for uncovering microhistorical truths about what has already come to pass. In contrast, this Article advocates viewing trial as but one component of the overall mechanism by which the legal system influences everyday behavior. When trial is viewed less in terms of discerning past events, and more in terms of shaping future events, several apparently troublesome aspects of the existing system's treatment of evidence tampering gain substantial justification, and the way is paved for a more fruitful evaluation of current doctrine.
Citation
Chris William Sanchirico,
Evidence Tampering,
53 Duke Law Journal
1215-1336
(2004)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol53/iss4/1