This would first insinuate that the distruction of field notes is being done intentionally to hide something from the other side. I more like the presumption of innocence until there is some information obtained to the contrary. If the investigator states that all information is contained in the written report, I take it at face value that he or she is telling the truth. If you are saying you need all this information to conduct a meaningful review, then my question is how do you save the thoughts in my head, they are notes I use in formulating a hypothesis and finally a conclusion. If the person has left something out of the report and does not bring it up in deposition most courts will not let testimony be given on that new information. With this being the case, it does more to hurt his or her cases to leave information out. If the information is detrimental to their side I do not believe they have any requirement to produce information that is not required by law.

By saying they must keep their notes, it seems as if the intention is more to attack the person’s creditability than the facts of the case. If you are withheld as a consultant to the attorney for the purpose of your testimony never being made available to the other side, would that not have the same effect of destroying note with information detrimental to the investigator’s case. If the person was to say he or she destroyed their field notes and that the information in those not was not retained in any form, I believe I would like that to come to the jury in just that form.

A question that was asked once before, if you are working for the prosecution and are not called to testify because you have information that will help the defense, should you tell the defense?

This is not a simple area. There is no black and white area that fits all cases.