CA11: Refusal to cooperate in taking DNA by SW permitted adverse inference at trial

“The record here demonstrates that the district court did not plainly err by allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference of guilt from Gonzalez’s refusal to provide his DNA even though his counsel was not present. When the government requested Gonzalez’s DNA sample, it was not a critical stage in the criminal prosecution, and Gonzalez did not have a right to counsel.” United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3986 (11th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025).

This inventory was reasonable. The officer abruptly changed his mind about the inventory, but it was because he realized that the car couldn’t be driven away. Holifield v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 1424 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 21, 2025).*

“During the [blood] draw, the defendant stated, ‘of all the times I’ve driven drunk, this is the time that I’m caught.’” State v. Martin, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 97 (Feb. 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.