I was on a jury last month, an assault and battery case in which the identification of the rusty-colored substance on the grip of a handgun could easily make a big difference. We convicted on the assault and acquitted on the battery because of the lack of the evidence, though I think most of us thought the defendant was guilty of both.

This was the second try at this case after a prior jury hung, but the two years between the charge and the second trial were not enough to get _any_ results back on the substance. Apparently the lead time required is such that they didn't bother to try. Here's how they explained that: "This isn't CSI."

If two years is not enough lead time someone is not doing their job.

Agree. I could understand if the expense of a DNA analysis sufficient to identify only the victim could be more than the county could afford for a battery case. But not trying to even identify it as blood, let alone human blood, just seems lazy. Here's what the prosecutor gave us in place of that: "If it smells like a skunk, it's a skunk, you don't have to see it." I was thinking that I smelled one and was looking at it.