The reliability and preservation of evidence from a scene of crime depend largely on the initial action at the scene of crime due to the fragile and the transient nature of the traces and the evidence found therein. Attaining evidence intercity requires a series of discrete and well-calculated steps on the parts of the instigators, meaning that they have to observe the guiding principles. Acting with professionalism and care throughout the process of investigation and handling the scene of crime with utmost caution is critical to the admissibility of the evidence adduced before a court of law. This paper analyzes the violence crimes unit incident report to determine the credibility of the evidence contained therein by the homicide department on the investigation of the death of Ashley Nicole smith. Towards this end, the paper will examine the crime scene investigation, analysis of evidence, the investigative steps and strategies, and the interrogation and interview of witnesses to determine the quality, credibility, and the admissibility of evidence collected.
Crime Scene Investigation and Evidence Analysis
The first responders that included the investigative unit, the forensic technicians, the patrol unit, and the mobile command applied impressive crime scene management skills that will undoubtedly provide a credible picture during the consideration of the weight of the evidenced by the court. The most notable item at the crime scene was cordoned off the area, as done by Lieutenant Prozeralik. Such is vital in ensuring that no interferences with the pieces of evidence present at the scene. Furthermore, to gather and to preserve information for the scene, the team of investigators photographed it from the gerund and from a helicopter to get more details. Collecting exhibit and other pieces of evidence such as two black caps would undoubtedly be valuable during forensic examination. To manage the crime scene, the investigators documented the whole scene by taking both photographs and notes that would help unravel the case (Turvey, 2020). It is worth noting that the court usually accepts the notes as evidence whether made on a piece of paper or a notebook as in the case study.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The investigator's notebook is vital since it is the main reference for law enforcement in a court of law since it refreshes the memories of the officer. In a situation when the investigator's notes are consistent with investigator's testimony, the courts will admit the as evidence sine they provide the court with circumstantial truthfulness or assurance, meaning that it can be used to gauge the truthfulness or the reliability of the evidence. The investigators need to take the right notes because the defense tends to scrutinize parts of the evidence that is missing or not properly captured by the investigators in the notebook. The court tends to give unrecorded facts less weight during the final deliberations since the objective is to decide proof beyond reasonable doubt such as the one in question. It is commendable that the investigators took notes by recording in various forms the scene of crime (Turvey, 2020). Right notes provide an overview of the things seen and the actions taken by the officers. The notes provide a chronology of the events as documented in the case and provide the investigator with a mental map of the facts obtained that often lead to arrest of suspects and the subsequent charges.
The investigators preserved the integrity of the crime scene from the time they were alerted of the body and a possible case of homicide. The preservation of the crime scene involves various measures and actions such as locking down the scene, setting up a perimeter around the scene, determining the pat of contamination, and finally establishing the security of the crime scene. As required by the standard procedure, when the investigators arrived at the scene of crime, they protected the scene as soon as they established that criminal even had occurred and it was inactive. They immediately switched to an active investigative model. It is imperative to note that in an inactive crime scene, the expectation of the court requires safeguarding the scene and the evidence found therein (Turvey, 2020). There is an immediate requirement for the investigators to take control of and lock down the scene, as they did in this particular case. In terms of crime scene management, protection, and security, the investigators played by the book since they followed all the procedures and protocol as demonstrated.
Investigative Steps and Strategies in the Case
A critical look at the investigative strategies and processes applied by the investigators reveals that they followed a standard procedure. First, the investigators recorded or documented everything at the scene of crime. It is imperative not that in the detailed record of homicide goes beyond memory since it requires keeping detailed records. The records are not just to aid in memory. It is apparent that the investigators recorded every step of the investigation including the forensic report, witness statement, and the even took photos of the crime scene from both the ground and using a helicopter as well. The main objective is to get as much detail as possible on the crime scene, which was undoubtedly crucial in solving the case. Contained in the book are witnesses and the possible names of the killers who committed the homicide. In the case of homicide, no information is too much information. Every detail counts and should be treated seriously as the detectives did.
The investigators worked within the stipulated timeline, meaning that they set time to enable them to solve the case. Conducting a timely investigation, the same way the investigators did has the propensity of closing down the suspect's alibi. Learning everything about the victim is essential, especially learning the victim's movement in her final days helps the investigators to trace her contacts and suspects. As evident from the case, a victim's final days and weeks are vital since it permits the investigators to know the victim, their habits, hobbies, and friends and that makes a whole difference a solved case and a cold case. In the case under study, the investigators were able to narrow down the suspects based on the victim's last contact. The detectives were able to determine that Jones and Johnson were the last people that Ashley interacted with before she met her death.
During the investigative process, detectives need to follow every lead. Keeping an open mind means following the causes and possible perpetrators of the crime and its essential for the success of the investigation. The detectives followed every possible lead. They interviewed witnesses and took witness statements with the view of determining the most promising ones. For instance, they put out a reward as a way of getting people to speak up, and in the process, management to jerk people to action. From the various witness statements recorded, the detectives were able to narrow them down to the most useful ones by eliminating the ones that would not be relevant. Apart from the witness statements, they were able to carry out forensic analysis on the caps found at the crime scene plus the knife, which was supposedly the weapon used to kill Ashley. In other words, the investigation was multi-faceted in that it took various angles that include witness statements, crime investigation, and the investigators following up on different leads.
The investigators treated everything as evidence since they did not discard any exhibit or witness statements, particularly the promising ones. In a crime scene, everything is a potential lead. Such may include the victim’s body to the items such as caps that were found next to Ashley. The witnessed systematic processing of the scene certainly improved the chances of narrowing down the suspects and subsequently solving the crime. It is worth noting that investigation goes beyond the collection of forensic evidence and fingerprints, but rather determining what belongs and what does not belong may be useful to the in DNA testing and establishing the murder weapon.
The major factor in solving a homicide is the resilience or the perseverance of the investigating team. The detectives were persistent in the pursuit of clues and witnesses to ravel the case. For instance, they followed up the case and were able to piece together a story that traced the movement of the victim and the people she interacted with to the point when she was killed, which requires perseverance. In some instances, the detectives even interrogated or interviewed witnesses twice. The technology was at the center of the cases. The forensic analysis was able to help in the identification of the fingerprints in the murder weapon and the DNA found at the scene of crime.
Interrogation and Interviewing of Suspects
As documented in the case, the techniques used in the interrogation of suspects, witnesses, and persons of interest in the case were both legal ethical since there is no evidence to prove coercion or maltreatment of those involved in the mentioned processes (Kelly & Meissner, 2015). The officers conducted a regular assessment of the witnesses in particular to determine the ones that had knowledge or the ones whose statements were relevant to the investigations. For instance, after announcing a reward of $8000 to any witness who would provide a credible lead towards solving Ashley’s murder, various witnesses came forward. Still, a bigger fraction of the statements were rejected since they were not valuable or relevant to the case. Using credibility and relevance to the case to gauge witnesses is a great way ensuring truthfulness and accuracy of evidence, and hence admissibility before the jury.
It is imperative to note that the courts will weigh the values employed by the officers in the investigation process and weigh the same against the rights of both the victim and the suspects. For the evidence to be admissible, the officers should not infringe on the rights of the suspects or the witnesses during the interrogation or the interviewing process. It is evident that the officers were cognizant of their personal biases in the process of investigation, and that is the reason the statements were objective and relevant to the case (Kelly & Meissner, 2015). It means that the officers did not let personal biases such as solvability; serial offences by the suspects’, the seriousness of the crime, and perishable evidence affect how they conducted the interrogation. First, the people who were interrogated had proven or suspected connection to the case. The ones that had no proven connection to the cases were discarded. For instance, Johnson was picked up for interrogation after extensively being mentioned by Jones, who even admitted to being present when the former purchased the knife, which was supposedly used to kill Ashley.
In the investigative process, the investigators often walk a thin line that is defined by trickery, lies, and deception by people who either want to be accorded the promised bounty or suspects hoping to get away with murder and some heinous acts (Bull, 2014). In an attempt to address the hurdles, investigators need no to be overzealous, but should instead be tenacious, the same way the investigations were done in the case in question. A critical reflection on the information and the evidence obtained during the investigation proves that the curt would find most parts of it admissible because there was no use of force; the witnesses answered the questions out of their free will (Verhoeven, 2018). Some of the witnesses even volunteered to help the investigators further reaffirming the fact that the information obtained was legal and ethical.
The courts do not permit investigating officers to use tricks to obtain evidence or to solve crimes. The tricks are only admissible when they do not shock the community, meaning that the officers may not impersonate persons of interest in the case such as a lawyer or priest to obtain information from the suspects (Kelly & Meissner, 2015). In the case, no such tricks were used to obtain information since the officers identified themselves to the witnesses and stated the purpose of the interview before embarking on their objectives. Most of the questions asked were mostly leading questions that led the officers to obtain the information they needed. For instance, the interview with Jones proved particularly helpful in not only narrowing down the events and the possible killer. The officers were able to interrogate Jones professionally, and he divulged information on the killing and the weapon used, which was consistent with the knife and the other items found at the scene of crime.
There are no signs of lies that could jeopardize the outcome of the case. It is worth noting that officers have liberty under the law to lie under certain circumstances. For instance, lying to bond with the suspect is allowed to enable the investigators to obtain confessions. Nevertheless, lying is strictly forbidden in various circumstances that include but not limited to planting or creating evidence, lying to fellow officers, lying to the courts, lying in notebooks and reports, and lying in civil or administrative proceedings (Kelly & Meissner, 2015). In the case and the recorded event does not show any incident of lying. The evidence and the exhibits, therefore, were legally and ethically obtained. As mentioned, most of the witnesses interviewed came forward voluntarily or were brought forth after being mentioned in connection with Ashley’s murder. It means that the officers did not makeup or coach witnesses, as is often the case. There was no application of an immoral means to an end since the officers carried out due diligence in narrowing down the suspects and in collecting evidence and witness statements.
Explanations to Counter Defense Attempt to Suppress Evidence
The defence may employ various arguments and techniques to suppress the evidence obtained during the investigations. Towards this end, the defence may cite the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents the court from admitting the evidence that is supposedly obtained illegally (Alison et al., 2014). The defense may argue that the suspect’s rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment that may include unlawful search and seizure. For instance, the knife, which is the murder weapon, would not be appropriate if the investigators searched Johnson’s house without a warrant. To counter that argument, the officers should argue and prove that they searched the suspect’s house and obtained the weapon and other exhibits before the court after obtaining a valid warrant (Verhoeven, 2018). Additionally, the officers followed the setout procedures in obtaining the warrant and summoning the suspect for questioning. The investigators should argue that the investigation and the subsequent obtaining of evidence were procedural and did not in any way violate the Fifth or the Sixth Amendment.
The doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” that admissible testimony, confessions, or evidence may be excluded from the body evidence if they were obtained from an illegal search or in breach of other constitutional provisions. For instance, if a suspect points at the police in the direction of obtaining the murder weapon and is arrested without being informed of his Miranda rights or denied the opportunity to speak to a lawyer, then the murder weapon, in this case, the knife may be inadmissible in court. To counter this argument and line of thought, the investigators should inform the court that before effecting Johnson’s arrest, they read the Miranda rights to him (Bull, 2014). Furthermore, they have to prove to the court that Johnson was not denied the right to an attorney once he was arrested. That way, the evidence adduced will be admissible, and the suspect will stand trial.
The defense may also try to prove that the evidence obtained is inadmissible in a court of law due to a chain of custodial errors, which entails the proper care of evidence and documentation of the evidence agent the suspect. To counter such, the prosecution should prove that the documentation and preservation of evidence were done per the standard procedure (Alison et al., 2014). The scene was handled professionally because the first responders first cordoned it off before beginning the process of evidence collection. For instance, if the prosecution may prove that the investigators mislabeled the blood samples, for example, then the evidence obtained through forensic examination would be inadmissible. To counter the argument on possible mishandling of evidence, the investigators should prove to the court the proper handling of evidence and documentation of the same. If an independent source could provide similar evidence, then such will be admissible in a court of law.
Reflections
The collection and the subsequent obtaining of evidence require due diligence on the part of investigators to be admissible. Investigations require an open mind and due diligence. Keeping an open mind means the following causes and possible perpetrators of the crime and it is essential for the success of the investigation. The detectives followed every possible lead. They interviewed witnesses and took witness statements with the view of determining the most promising ones. For instance, they put out a reward as a way of getting people to speak up, and in the process, management to jerk people to action. From the various witness statements recorded, the detectives were able to narrow them down to the most useful ones by eliminating the ones that would not be relevant. It is imperative not to discard any lead since such may be the key to cracking the case.
Obtaining and documenting evidence require the application of professional, ethical, and legal standards. The investigators treated everything as evidence since they did not discard any exhibit or witness statements, particularly the promising ones. In a crime scene, everything is a potential lead. Such may include the victim’s body to the items such as caps that were found next to Ashley. The witnessed systematic processing of the scene certainly improved the chances of narrowing down the suspects and subsequently solving the crime. The evidence and the exhibits were, therefore, obtained legally and ethically. As mentioned, most of the witnesses interviewed came forward voluntarily, or were brought forth after being mentioned in connection with Ashley’s murder. It means that the officers did not makeup or coach witnesses, as is often the case. There was no application of an immoral means to an end since the officers carried out due diligence in narrowing down the suspects and in collecting evidence and witness statements.
References
Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). The efficacy of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 20 (4), 421.
Bull, R. (Ed.). (2014). Investigative Interviewing . Springer Science & Business Media.
Kelly, C. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2015). Interrogation and investigative interviewing in the United States: Research and practice. Contemporary Developments and Practices in Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation , 2 , 11-25.
Turvey, B. E. (Ed.). (2020). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis . Academic Press.
Verhoeven, W. J. (2018). The complex relationship between interrogation techniques, suspects changing their statement and legal assistance. Evidence from a Dutch sample of police interviews. Policing and Society , 28 (3), 308-327.
