IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING ACCESS TO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution to allow access to the physical evidence for inspection, copying and testing.
In support of his motion, Mr. CLIENT states as follows:
1. Mr. CLIENT has an absolute, constitutional right to access to physical evidence for independent testing. As the Court held in State v. Gray, 351 So. 2d 448 (La. 1977), "[f]undamental fairness is violated when a criminal defendant on trial for his liberty is denied the opportunity to have an expert of his choosing, bound by appropriate safeguards imposed by the Court, determine a piece of critical evidence whose nature is subject to varying expert opinion." Id. at 454; accord State v. Clark, 414 So. 2d 737 (1982); State v. Migliore, 261 La. 722, 260 So. 2d 682 (1972). This right is universally recognized. See, e.g., Warren v. State, 288292 Ala. 71, So. 2d 826, 830 (Ala. 1973) ("The defendant having made proper and timely motion . . . [the evidence] should have been made available to his attorney, as an officer of the court, and under such safeguards as the trial court deemed necessary, for inspection and analysis"); see also People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105, 596 P.2d 1192, 1197 (Colo. 1979); Sabel v. State, 248 Ga. 10, 282 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. 1981); Gilliland v. State, 142 Ga. App. 374, 235 S.E.2d 780 (Ga. App. 1977); People v. Flowers, 51 Ill. 2d 25, 281 N.E.2d 299 (Ill. 1972); People v. Taylor, 54 Ill. App. 3d 454, 12 Ill. Dec. 76, 369 N.E.2d 573 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 1977); James v. Comm., 482 S.W.2d 92 (Ky. App. 1972); Jackson v. State, 243 So. 2d 396, 398 (Miss. 1970); Love v. State, 441 So. 2d 1353, 1355 (Miss. 1983); Harris v. State, 446 So. 2d 585, 588 (Miss. 1984); People v. White, 40 N.Y.2d 797, 358 N.E.2d 1031, 390 N.Y.S. 2d 405 (1976); State v. Stephens, 529 S.W.2d 712 (Tenn. 1975); State v. Gaddis, 530 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn. 1975); Detmering v. State, 481 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Terrell v. State, 521 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); State v. Smith, 156 W. Va. 385, 193 S.E.2d 550, 54 (W. Va. 1972); State v. Harr, 156 W. Va. 492, 194 S.E.2d 652, 656 (W. Va. 1973).
1. The right to independent review and testing of the evidence is also preserved in the Code:
. . . on motion of the defendant, the court shall order the district attorney to permit or authorize the defendant to inspect, copy, examine, test scientifically, photograph, or otherwise reproduce books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings, places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody, or control of the state, and which:

(1) are favorable to the defendant and which are material and relevant to the issue of guilt or punishment, or

(2) are intended for use by the state as evidence at the trial, or

(3) were obtained from or belong to the defendant.

La. Code Cr. Pro. art. 718.
2. For reasons of which the prosecution will be apprised in a timely manner, Mr. CLIENT may wish to attempt to retest physical evidence in this case. For this purpose, Mr. CLIENT may need an order allowing the evidence to be removed from the possession of the State agent who currently possesses it.
3. Mr. CLIENT is prepared to waive chain of custody with respect to the time frame in which it is in the hands of the defense team for retesting.
4. Mr. CLIENT will not be able to prepare for trial unless this motion is granted forthwith.
WHEREFORE, Mr. CLIENT moves that his motion be granted and that he be allowed access to the physical evidence for inspection and testing.
??

(..continued)