Detective Lens
In the scenario, only circumstantial evidence was used in the scenario. Usually, direct evidence is that which involves witness statements or interviews (Greenstein, 2009). However, in the scenario, although some witnesses claim they saw some individuals standing at the crime scene, their descriptions of these individuals varied greatly, and could possibly not be used to implicate the suspects. According to Garland (2015), the unreliability of direct evidence could be as a consequence of the inability of the witness to recall the details, the time that might have passed since the incident took place or the influx of opinions and descriptions related to the incident. In the scenario, it is evident that the witnesses cannot give a similar account with regards to the accurate description of the suspects. In the scenario, circumstantial evidence may be used in the form of the characters of the suspects; if the suspects have a history of committing similar crimes, then they can be questioned further to establish where they were at the time when the crimes were committed.
A lot of evidence in the scenario is documentary evidence; both primary and secondary. The primary documentary evidence is in the form of the letters from the jail’s mail department, which were returned or undelivered. Secondary documentary evidence is from copies of letters that were obtained from family members. The evidence collection procedures in the scenario involved first trying to collect some evidence at the crime scene, then hearing witness accounts or statements, and then trying to find any leads from the suspects’ correspondence. The procedure implies that primary evidence is overvalued compared to circumstantial or documentary evidence. The law enforcement agencies mainly rate direct evidence highly, and only collect any other form of evidence as last resort. All the evidence is admissible in trial because whether direct, circumstantial or documentary, all of this evidence can be used in a court of law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Judge Lens
The evidence that can be relied upon in this lens is documentary evidence, both primary and secondary evidence. Undelivered letters, which are written by the suspects, constitute primary documentary evidence and anything found in the documents that can be said to implicate the suspects can be used. Copies of letters from family members of the suspects constitute secondary evidence and can also be used to implicate the suspects. However, copies of the letters need to be only used if the original letters are not available, most specifically, as a result of getting lost or destroyed (Heller, 2006). Additionally, the defendants or the accused also need to be given the copies of secondary documentary evidence before the documents are used. With regard to the evidence collection procedure, it is evident that the detectives attempted to collect direct evidence first before turning to circumstantial and documentary evidence. The resolve to turn to documentary evidence clearly was because of the lack of strong direct evidence to implicate the suspects. The procedure also shows that the written policies about evidence collection prioritize direct evidence over any other forms of evidence. Documentary evidence in the scenario is admissible in trial.
Summary
The judge’s lens was the hardest to answer because most of the questions are directed towards the detective’s perspective. It is the work of the detective to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and present evidence for the judge to decide upon the case. For the judge’s perspective, it would have been much better if there was substantial evidence in the scenario, probably provided by the detectives, and then from the judge’s perspective, it would have been prudent to analyze whether the evidence presented is enough to implicate the suspects.
References
Garland, N. (2015). Criminal evidence . McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Greenstein, R. (2009). Determining Facts: The Myth of Direct Evidence. Houston Law Review , 45 , 2008-68.
Heller, K. J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Mich. L. Rev. , 105 , 241.
