Christina Martin was convicted of murdering her long-time boyfriend by spiking his food with LSD because her teenage daughter told her that he had been sexually assaulting her. Christina did not fall under suspicion by the police until after her boyfriend had been buried, when the police learned Christina had reportedly told friends and family of her plans.
Thirty days after his burial, Christina's boyfriend was exhumed, and it was discovered that his grave had filled with groundwater. A sample of tissue recovered during the exhumation tested positive for LSD by radioactive immunoassay analysis (RIA). However, the sample came back negative for LSD when tested with a more advanced method that can detect the molecular mass of any compound present in the sample. The prosecution relied heavily on the RIA analysis of a questionable sample while downplaying the gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) data results as insignificant to the jury.
The defense failed to challenge the evidence in the first trial, which resulted in a conviction. In your opinion, and relying on the limited amount of information provided in this case, could a conviction have been secured if the evidence had been properly presented? Remember that the standard for a jury to convict a defendant is that the person must be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."