The law provides for a just ruling and underlines the importance of due process. The prosecuting attorney and the defendant have a right to a severance of offenses they dispute as unrelated to the fact presented before the court ( Yin, 2017 ). The court often grants severance of related offenses on the application of the severance case by either the prosecuting or the defendant. Correspondingly, Bert is right to file a motion for severance in the case, given the charge sheet presented in court faults his involvement in the alleged crime and his revelation if proved factual could strengthen prosecution’s case, further serving in the interest of the republic. Two parameters guide the process to severe a case and courts often discern whether severance will promote or is necessary to achieve a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence for each of the alleged offenses. As was in the case of Lockhood Martin against Boeng, the court allowed for the severance of the case in favor of the defendant who’s input was equally beneficial to the state ( Silverman, 2016 ). Additionally, Bert can enter a plea agreement after pleading guilty to the charge of assault and can trade the information he has concerning the case, using it to secure a non-custodial light sentence instead. When put to scale, the declaration by Bert that he did not commit any of the rapes and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls is sufficient enough to confirm that Jones raped, though does not confirm the position on Walsh. In adherence to the protocols outlined for determination of a severance case, the act of severance will promote a fair determination of the defendants’ (Jones, Bert, and Walsh) guilt or innocence and is, therefore, necessary. Accordingly, the court should heed to Bert’s petition of Severance. Bland’s new information distancing Walsh from the alleged rape further serves into prosecutor’s interest of ensuring that justice is served and that the perpetrators are charged and sentenced accordingly. Before Bland’s statement that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes presents the prosecutor with a chance to corroborate facts. Now that the filed case against Bert and Walsh has a skeptic tint, the Prosecutor should consider dropping the charges against the two. Originally, five elements including penetration, force, nonconsent, absence of a spousal relationship and the guilty mind qualified the offense of rape. However, there have been positive developments on how modern courts deliberate on rape cases. Evidence shows that a majority of courtrooms nowadays focus on alleged sexual relations and on the nonconsenting part ( Frisch, 2017 ). Agreeably, additional elements could emerge during trial such as violence and intimidation and ought to inform prosecutor’s intentions to charge suspects. Therefore, the prosecutor must have obtained medical testaments confirming that penetration had occurred and should have factual evidence to prove that the penetration was nonconsent and perpetrated by the accused. Assumedly, the prosecutor has enough evidence to prove that Jones, Bert, and Walsh, on different dates committed the crime of rape and can confirm the charges against individual suspects, regardless of Bland’s new statement and Bert’s motion of severance of the case. Therefore, the prosecutor must proceed with the case without petitioning for adjustments. However, if there is doubt, based on the available evidence, then the prosecutor should drop or revise the charges against Walsh-in addition to revising or dropping charges against Bert. Both victims’ and witness statement ought to inform and influence the decision to retain Walsh as a suspect. Witnesses must therefore corroborate facts, whereas suspects and victims ought to explain the details of the events, maintaining their chronological manifestation, to create a link. A long standing court tradition demands a physical appearance of all witnesses in court. A typical criminal case, especially one involving a rape charge necessitates for cross-examination ( Najafloo, Khoueeni, & Soleymani, 2019 ). There are debates regarding testifying via video conference or telephone, but the practice has precedence ( Frisch, 2017 ). Bert’s motion for severance is crucial to this case, as his statement features accounts that could confirm the arguments made by the prosecutor. Bert’s defense is a guilty plea on a different charge. However, the cornerstone of Bert’s defense is that of an alibi, who should corroborate Bert’s claims that he was not present when two of the alleged three rape incidences occurred. Therefore, the appearance of Mook in court is important and necessary for the fair determination of Bert’s guilt or innocence. The court must therefore make a ruling ordering Mook’s return to the country, or allow for cross examination via video-conferencing, at Bert’s expenses. Alternatively, the court can reschedule dates for the hearing the case to correspond with dates when Mook will be in the country. It is important for both Bert and the prosecutor as the Court depends on Mooky’s statement to dissociate Bert from the two incidences, leaving him with the one time he claimed to have only hit a girl to explain. Notably, Bert filed a motion of continuance of the case, with Mook in absentia, for which the Court should discourage as Mook’s involvement and statement therein is crucial for the case.
References
Frisch, A. (2017). The Invention of the Eyewitness: Witnessing and Testimony in Early Modern France . The University of North Carolina Press.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Najafloo, R., Khoueeni, G., & Soleymani, A. M. (2019). Modern testimony hearing in virtual space. Revista de Direito da Cidade , 11 (2), 1-11. Retrieved from https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/rdc/article/view/34496/0 .
Silverman, L. E. (2016). The equal employment opportunity commission as a change agent: Tracing the EEOC's relentless pursuit of" retaliatory" waiver provisions in employer severance agreements. ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law , 45-64. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44648538 .
Yin, T. (2017). Justice Scalia as Neither Friend nor Foe to Criminal Defendants. Akron Law Review , 50 (2), 4. Retrieved from https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgireferer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2392&context=akronlawreview .
