Criminal Evidence Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Physical Evidence
Miranda
Exclusionary Rule
Search and Seizure
References

Physical Evidence

Authentication or Identification of Physical Evidence

The laws regarding authentication or identification of physical evidence are contained in Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Authenticating physical evidence calls for a witness to establish beyond doubt that an article is what he or she contends it to be. There are various ways of authenticating or identifying physical evidence as provided for in this rule (Garland, 2006). Some of these ways are:

The Testament of a Knowledgeable Witness

Physical evidence may be authenticated by a knowledgeable witness giving evidence directly. This is done usually by an eyewitness who was at the place of the crime.

A Non-Expert View Regarding Handwriting

In this case, physical evidence is authenticated by a non-expert who knew the subject’s handwriting before the case was filed. This could be a parent, a spouse, or a friend.

Witness’s View Regarding a Voice

Physical evidence may be proved by a witness establishing the identity of the person behind a recorded or original voice.

Evidence from a Telephone Conversation

Physical evidence can be proved by establishing that a call had been made to a number belonging to a given person at a certain time.

Public Records

This form of evidence does not require to be authenticated. It includes driving license, lease, etc.

Ways in which Photographic, Recorded and Computer-generated Evidence can be used in a Trial

Photographic, recorded and computer-generated evidence could be used in a trial in the following ways:

Showing the Scene of the Incidence

Photographs could be used to show the scene where the incident leading to the case happened. Photographs are very useful tools when a witness is describing the scene (Franklin, 1998).

Demonstrating Injury

Photographs could be used to illustrate the injury suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the incident that led to the litigation. Recordings such as videotapes may also be used for the same purpose (Graham, 1996).

Complementing Verbal Testimony

Computer-generated evidence such as X-ray pictures could be used to illustrate the verbal testimony of a witness. Such X-ray photographs may be used to show the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.

Showing Economic Losses

Computer-generated graphs as well as charts could be used to indicate the financial loss incurred by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s liability. Such losses could be in the form of profits, hospital bills, etc.

Presenting Audio-visual Evidence

Recordings and computer-generated images could also be used to present audio-visual evidence during a case.

Reconstructing Evidence

Computer technology can be used generate images based on the verbal evidence of a witness. Such images could be based on the description of a defendant or an important witness whose presence is necessary in the case but who is still at large. These reconstructions are useful for identifying the missing defendant or witness especially through publication (Franklin, 1998).

Miranda

The Requirements for Miranda

Informing the relevant persons that they are entitled to remaining silent and that anything they say could be used against them during trial.
Informing the relevant persons that they are entitled to consulting their attorney before being questioned by the police.
Informing the relevant persons that they have the right to an attorney during questioning.
Informing the relevant persons that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be availed to them at no cost (Lawrence, 2005).

Meaning of Custody

According to Miranda, custody refers to substantial restriction of a person’s freedom of movement through formal arrest (William, 2008).

Meaning of Interrogation

Under Miranda, interrogation implies direct questioning of the suspect with the view of extracting incriminating evidence (William, 2008).

Exceptions to Miranda Requirements

Routine Booking Question Exception

Routine questions asked during the arrest process which are not intended to extract incriminating evidence are not taken as interrogation.

Jail House Informant Exception

This exception relates to a situation where the suspect is not aware that he or she is talking to a state agent when producing incriminating statements.

The Public Safety Exception

This exception operates when the police are of the view that public safety is in peril (William, 2008).

Exclusionary Rule

The Creation Process and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule

The Exclusionary rule is enshrined in the US constitution and it prohibits the use of evidence which has been extracted from defendants in contravention of their constitutional rights. This rule emerged in the Height case of 1902, where a physical exam done on the defendant contrary to his will was to be used as evidence in that case. The purpose of the rule is to prevent the breach of defendants’ constitutional rights during the gathering of prosecution evidence by the police (Graham, 1996).

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

This doctrine states that any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in a court of law in the US. The tree here denotes the source of the evidence while the fruit is the evidence. The fruit (evidence) is poisonous because it was got from a defiled source (Lawrence, 2005).

The Independent Source Doctrine

This doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule. It states that, if some of the evidence got from a tainted source was obtained independently and from an untainted source, then this evidence is admissible in a court of law (William, 2008).

Search and Seizure

Warrant Requirement

The warrant requirement rule protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Exceptions to the Rule

In the Case of Lawful Arrest

Police have the authority to search the person and surroundings of an individual who has been lawfully arrested.

The Plain View Principle

Where the law enforcers are standing at a point from which physical proof can be seen, a warrant is not necessary for capturing such proof.

Affirmation

If the authorities get a go-ahead for searching a premise and taking evidence with them from a person whom they believe to possess such authority, then no warrant is necessary.

Stop and Search

The law enforcers have the right to search a suspect if they are sufficiently suspicious that he or she has perpetrated a crime.

Vehicles Exception

As vehicles can move fast, a search warrant is not necessary provided the police can establish that they had sufficient cause to suspect that a vehicle has criminal evidence.

Emergencies

This exception relates to evidence that can easily disappear. In such a case, a search warrant is not required (William, 2008).

Situations Deemed to be Exigent

The Exigency rule provides leeway to the police to rummage a premise without a warrant under specific situations. These circumstances are:

Where there is need to protect the police or other individuals from physical injury.
Where evidence may be destroyed
Where the suspect may escape and;
Where another incident can frustrate enforcement of the law (Garland, 2006).

References

Franklin, C. (1998). Miranda and Stansbury Case: An Analysis. New York: Alt.law-enforcement.

Garland, N. (2006). Criminal Evidence. Boston: McGraw Hill Publishing.

Graham, H. (1996). Common Law Systems in Fundamentals of American Law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lawrence M. (2005). A History of American Law. New York: Touchstone.

William, B. (2008). Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States. London: Thomson West.

Click Here To Order Now!