Opinion ID: 3209144
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The DSP Audit

Text: On March 4, 2014, the evidence in Williams’ case was removed from the OCME vault and transported to the Delaware State Police vault at Troop 2. The Chain of Custody Report indicates that Daneshgar removed the evidence from the OCME vault and placed it in storage with the Delaware State Police. On cross-examination, Daneshgar testified that this portion of the Chain of Custody Report is also incorrect. Daneshgar was not responsible for removing the evidence from the OCME vault on March 4, 2014. In fact, on March 4, Sergeant Scott McCarthy (“Sergeant McCarthy”) and two other officers were responsible for transporting the evidence from the OCME to Troop 2, where it was “entered into [a] drug evidence center.”11 Daneshgar’s role in the removal process was merely to log evidence out of the OCME computer system. In connection with the investigation of misconduct at the OCME, an “audit” was performed on drugs stored there. Between 1:57 p.m. and 2:01 p.m. on March 6, 2014, the evidence seized from Williams was audited by Detective Vincent Jordan (“Detective Jordan”). The one-page audit report reflects that there was no “discrepancy” between the contents of the evidence containers and the description of the evidence on the outside of the containers.12 At trial, Detective Jordan was unable to recall whether the evidence was 11 On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Sergeant McCarthy whether he had ever opened the evidence envelopes, and Sergeant McCarthy testified that he “did not.” Transcript of Trial at B-51, State v. Williams, Cr. ID. No. 1311002512 (Del. Super. Jan. 14, 2015). 12 The audit report does not describe the manner in which the audit was conducted. Nor does it describe the condition of the envelopes containing the evidence, the evidence tape, or the evidence itself. 7 merely counted during the audit or whether the baggies containing the drugs were weighed.