Criminal Evidence: Solid-Proof Data

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

Abstract
Introduction
Hearsay
Privileged Communication
Best Evidence Rule
Conclusion
References

Abstract

Obtaining evidence for its further use in court as the means to prove a point may include an array of methods that are not often deemed as legal. Using the information supplied by untrustworthy sources may pose a legitimate threat to all parties involved, not only making a mockery of the justice system but also jeopardizing one’s safety and even life. Therefore, the instances of hearsay and privileged communication must be identified successfully whenever they appear in the course of the prosecution. Furthermore, the use of the Best Evidence Rule (BER) must be consistent. Thus, the foundation for a fair trial and an adequate assessment of the situation can be created. As the three cases under analysis show, determining the incidences of hearsay and privileged communication, as well as applying the BER, may be rather tricky. No matter how tempting and reasonable the unauthorized use of the available information may seem, the contemporary justice system must set an example by complying with the principles of legal data management with uncompromising integrity.

Keywords: hearsay, privileged communication, best evidence rule

Introduction

Finding the evidence that can be used in court as a legitimate proof of a specific claim is often rather difficult due to numerous biases involved. Because of the convoluted way in which information travels from one recipient to another, the results may likely be deemed as inappropriate for the use in court (Lippman, 2015). The three cases in point are a graphic representation of how the use of seemingly solid-proof data may become rather misguided.

Hearsay

The case in which Louigi “The Pipe” Cardone receives a word-of-the-mouth piece of information regarding the alleged involvement of Freddy “Fingers” Malone was killed by his wife is the exact representation of hearsay. Indeed, by definition, the latter suggests that the data the veracity of which has not been confirmed should be used. Seeing that most of the claims rely on a rumor, it cannot possibly be used in court as substantial evidence (Spencer, 2014). One might argue that the suspicions raised by Louigi and supported by the people to whom he had talked may serve as the reason for reopening the case. However, the information supplied via the source as unreliable as the stated one cannot be deemed as appropriate for representing during the court hearing. In other words, the information about the alleged involvement of the victim’s wife should be viewed as hearsay (Redmayne, 2015).

Privileged Communication

According to the existing definition, the concept of privileged communication involves information sharing between a lawyer and a client (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). The concept also extends to the interactions between a patient and a healthcare expert, a married couple, etc. In the identified scenario, compelling the witness to disclose the information related to the other party would not be considered a legitimate step to take.

Applying the said notion to the scenarios provided, one must admit that there is a phenomenon known as the accountant-client privilege. The latter suggests that the data supplied to the accountant by their customer should not be made available to the third party unless permitted by the client (Miller, 2014). Therefore, disclosing the information regarding money laundering that Tommy “Two Toes” D’Natalia has shared with his CPA and is not prohibiting from revealing may be deemed as illegal. It should be noted, though, that the accountant-client privilege is only practiced in several states including Texas. Therefore, whether the identified scenario should be considered a case of an accountant-client privilege depends on the location.

Best Evidence Rule

The concept of the Best Evidence Rule (BER) is fairly simple – it states the superiority of the original over any copy. While the specified idea seems quite legitimate when dealing with written evidence, it may imply complications if considering witnesses’ testimonials. In the third scenario involving a robbery and shooting, the data provided by Little Carmine Angelo, the accomplice, will be viewed as more valuable than that of the car driver, Lawrence “Lucky” Livorno. The reasons for applying the BER in the case in point are rather obvious – while the driver was in the car during the shooting and the robbery, the accomplice was witnessing the crime and, thus, could provide more valuable information (Hoffmeister, 2014).

Conclusion

When determining whether the accused is innocent or guilty, the participants of the trial must take every single piece of evidence into account. However, it is also imperative to make sure that the information submitted for the consideration and further analysis by the members of the jury should be legitimate, credible, and true to the facts. In other words, avoiding any possible biases is the ultimate goal. For this purpose, the members of the jury must recognize the instances of hearsay, as well as the elements of privileged communication, and abstain from basing their judgment on the identified data. Furthermore, the concept of the BER must be viewed as the top priority.

One must admit that there are exceptions to this rule and that a range of important pieces of information may slip between the jury’s fingers if following the specified regulations. After all, there may be legitimate reasons for certain hearsay to spread, etc. However, the court must remain the beacon of justice and set an example by using the available information in a just and appropriate manner.

References

Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2015). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Hoffmeister, T. A. (2014). Social media in the courtroom: A new era for criminal justice? Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Lippman, M. (2015). Criminal evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Miller, R. L. (2014). Business law today, comprehensive: Text and cases. Diverse, ethical, online, and global environment. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Redmayne, M. (2015). Character in the criminal trial. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, J. R. (2014).Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Click Here To Order Now!