Name at least five different types of evidence needed to prove the guilt of the defendant in the case selected.
In criminal cases, evidence play a critical role in making judicial decisions. When there is sufficient and legitimate evidence in the case, it helps the jury convict the prime suspect. When there is a lack of enough evidence, the judges may return a no guilty verdict. In the selected gunshot murder case, the court requires at least five types of evidence to help prosecute a suspected criminal. The first type of evidence to have in court is physical evidence, where criminal investigators any material or weapons used by the suspect to commit the crime. In the selected case of murder, the physical evidence presented is the firearm (.22 caliber) that was retrieved from the suspect. Physical, material or real evidence play a critical role in connecting the suspect or a victim to a crime scene, thus enabling the investigators to re-create the scene and establish the sequence of events (Hess et al., 2016). When collected, preserved, and appropriately documented, Material Evidence may be the only way to reliably place or link someone to a crime and make informed prosecution to the suspect.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Direct evidence is another type of robust evidence because it requires no inference or interpretation of circumstances and stands as proof by itself. Direct evidence is substantial during prosecution because it informs the judge that something happened at the crime scene. The source of direct evidence in the selected murder case is the testimony of the three eyewitnesses who saw the white man shot the victim and runs into an old white Chevy. Forensic evidence is the third type of evidence required during the prosecution of the murder suspect. Forensic evidence is the scientific evidence obtained from conducting fingerprint analysis, ballistic analysis on the gun used to provide proof, and establishing a person's guilt or innocence (McEwen & Regoeczi, 2015). During prosecution, forensic evidence is usually considered solid and reliable evidence that plays a critical role in convicting criminals and exonerate the innocent.
Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is another necessary type of proof used to infer something based on a series of facts. This type of evidence requires a deduction of facts from other proven facts. The suspect seen running away from the murder scene into the old white Chevy with the weapon is an example of circumstantial evidence in the selected homicide case scenario. Circumstantial evidence works hand in hand with direct evidence, for instance, an eyewitness testifying seeing a suspect shooting the victim and run away. The combination of both circumstantial evidence and direct evidence can significantly improve the reliability of the proof. Demonstrative evidence is another vital type of evidence that plays a critical role in showing the facts using photos, video, or charts (Jones & Kovera, 2015). In the selected murder case scenario, the store owner where the incident happened can provide CCTV footage of what happened. Eyewitness might have also captured the event on their mobile cameras, and such videos and photos can give crucial demonstrative evidence to help in the prosecution of the suspect.
What issues may arise with the witnesses given in the case selected?
In the court, witnesses provide compelling legal testimony that is critical during the prosecution of suspects. Even though witnesses can provide crucial evidence in court, their information can have errors became human memory can forget some of the data and be susceptible to biases. The witness can have challenges when remembering specific details affecting the reliability accuracy of their evidence. One of the issues that may arise with the witness in the selected murder case scenario is misinformation. The problem of misinformation among the witness can easily occur without any intention to deceive, and slight changes in the wording of the question can lead to errors or wrong information provided by a witness (Mojtahedi et al., 2018). When an incident happens in a social situation, witnesses experience a significant corrupted memory that leads to misinformation. There is some difference in information provided by the three witnesses at the crime scene in the case scenario. The young black woman could give specific information concerning the man who ran out of the store after a gunshot, while the other two could provide a similar but vague description of the suspect. The information from the three witnesses indicates that there is a likelihood of misinformation if they are requested to provide their testimonies concerning the suspect of the murder.
Another issue that might arise from the witness is memory biases because people can forget events and individuals they once knew. Human memory is susceptible to a wide range of biases and errors that make one forget events or experience difficulty identifying faces and names of individuals. For example, if a person puts down keys somewhere without paying attention, it will be challenging for him/her to locate them because of memory biases and errors. In the murder cases scenario, the information provided by the two older people and a young lady indicates that some differences in the data. Maybe due to memory biases and errors, the two witnesses in their 60s have a challenge in remembering how the suspect was looking, but she can still describe the suspect in detail for the young woman. Studies indicate that children and old adults are more susceptible to memory biases and errors affecting their ability to describe events or suspects during an incident accurately. The courts must be aware of the malleable nature of human memory to protect the public from wrongful convictions based on misinformation and misidentification by witnesses.
How may hearsay be an issue in prosecuting the case selected?
Hearsay is a statement that someone gives to a witness to use while testifying the court. The information provided to the witnesses by someone else usually plays a critical role in criminal and civil cases. The concept behind hearsay is that any statement made out of court to a witness cannot be used to establish the truth of the matter because it is challenging to cross-examine the information for their credibility. The primary aim of the hearsay rule was to prevent juries from convicting defendants or imposing civil liability using rumours and secondhand information that is not validated (Sevier, 2015). However, the statement can be used to prove something else other than the truth of their content. In the selected case scenario of murder, hearsay can become an issue when prosecuting the suspect because, first of all, the evidence available is not clear concerning the perpetrator of the crime. The eyewitness who was there during the incident seems to have challenges describing the suspects. The information can become more distorted if it comes from another person who was not there during the incident.
In the prosecution of the suspect of the murder, hearsay statements can cause unreliability of the information because two incidences happened in the crime scene the shooting of the black male and theft of money in the store. Hearsay statements may focus only on stealing money, making the case change ultimately from that murder to robbery. When prosecuting the suspect of the murder in the case scenario, using hearsay information as part of evidence can be misleading because the incident is complicated and requires firsthand information to identify the suspect. One cannot conclude that the white individual in his early 20s could be the person who shot and killed a black man in the store until forensic analysis and other evidence are used to confirm. It means that hearsay statements can be unreliable to use in this case because even firsthand information concerning eyewitness become challenging to obtain making it challenging to identify the suspect unless other pieces of evidence are used to help identify the culprit. Therefore, hearsay statements will be the last source of evidence to prosecute the suspect of the shot and kill incident.
Which privilege may be raised in the case selected?
In the criminal justice system, some of the subject matters are privileged, and not one, including the jury, can inquire about them in any. The suspect can have confidential information that should not be disclosed or discovered and cannot be asked about during testimony. In the criminal justice system, privileges exist not because of fear that information might not be accurate but because public policy believes that information should not be disclosed. In the selected murder case of the shot and kill incident, there are two privileges raised when prosecuting the suspect. The first privilege is that of privilege against self-incrimination, and the other one is a spousal privilege.
The privilege against self-incrimination is set out in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution that provides an individual with the right to refuse to answer any questions or make statements that could be used in the criminal justice system to establish that the person committed the crime. With the help of this privilege, the government cannot force the suspect to testify against him/herself. The founders were concerned that suspects of criminal incidences were tortured into incriminating themselves, and the privilege has been extended to any forced testimony (Kerr, 2018). The impact of benefit against self-incrimination in the criminal justice system is that the state must prove the case without involving the defendant in any way, be it providing information or evidence.
If the suspect or defendant remains silent, he/she wins the case unless the court produces sufficient evidence of guilt. During the trial, the defendant may refuse to take a stand and testify, and the prosecutor may not comment on anything concerning the defendant's silence. Since the privilege applies to any crime, state or federal, the suspect in the selected shot and kills scenario can choose to take privilege against self-incrimination during the investigation. The suspect can refuse to talk to the police, answer any question that can incriminate him, provided he will appear during the grand jury. In some instances, the prosecutor can go around the privilege against self-incrimination by providing the defendant with immunity concerning the information concerning the crime he/she will mention when testifying. When the suspect is immunized against the possibility of prosecution, one can no longer refuse to testify by applying the privilege against self-incrimination and should answer any question asked or information needed by the court. The privilege is only limited to testimony, and the suspect can be forced to provide hair, blood, and fingerprint samples. The prosecutor can also push the defendant to produce writing samples and over information such as the location of bank accounts and other crucial information necessary in the prosecution process.
Spousal privilege is another benefit that the suspect of the selected case scenario of murder can have during prosecution. With this privilege, the defendant has the right to refuse to provide evidence or testify in a legal proceeding against the spouse. The spousal privilege was enacted to encourage open communication between the husbands and wives because they trust one another with their most private secrets and confidences (Sunshine, 2017). When a spouse is forced to testify, it compromises their marital bond and can break the marriage. There are two forms of spousal privilege; marital communication privilege and testimonial privilege. The wife of the suspected person to have shot and killed the black man in the selected case can have both the marital communication privilege and testimonial privilege during the prosecution process of the husband.
With marital communication privilege, the suspect of the shoot and kill incident can prevent his wife from testifying confidential marital communication, and this extends from both civil and criminal proceedings. There are three primary considerations for marital communication privilege to take effect. First, the subject of communication must be confidential; secondly, neither of the spouses has disclosed their secrets or communication to a third party. The last criteria are that the communication should occur during a valid marriage (Surette, 2015). Invoking the marital communication privilege after the marriage has ended is possible; however, the communication made is not protected. One spouse's statements to the other qualify as communication, but the conversations and observation overheard cannot be considered communication. For example, if the wife of the suspect in the shot and kill incident hear from someone else that her husband owns a gun, that does not qualify as a protected marital communication. However, the suspect can invoke marital communication privilege and prevent his wife from providing confidential information between them to help in the prosecution proceedings.
Unlike marital communication privilege, testimonial privilege only applies as long as the couple is legally married. After a divorce, a former spouse can testify against an ex-spouse in a criminal jury proceeding. And since the suspect and his wife are still in marriage, the defendant can invoke testimonial privilege and prevent the wife from testifying or providing critical information that can incriminate him. However, some exceptions might arise where the spouse's testimony is more important than preserving testimonial privilege, such as when the case involves a crime against another spouse. The suspect of the shoot and kill incident in the case scenario can invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, preventing him from providing sensitive information that can enhance jury proceedings. Spousal privilege is another benefit where the defendant can prevent his wife from testifying against him by providing the sensitive information to the jury to confirm his quilt.
What issues may be raised in a motion to suppress regarding evidence seized in the case selected?
For the prosecutor to convict a suspect, there must be sufficient evidence to convince a judge or jury that the defendant is guilty. However, suppression of evidence might occur if the judge rules certain information or evidence should not be submitted during the trial. Before the ruling by a judge, a lawyer must file a motion with the court asking to suppress the evidence keeping it out of a criminal case. The attorney should present sufficient and factual information to convince the judge that the evidence is illegal (Sekhon, 2016). The suppression of good evidence can be vital because it forces the jury to quit a trial or dismiss charges depending on how the evidence was collected. In the case selected, two issues can be raised in the motion to suppress the evidence collected during the shot and kill incident. The first issue is concerning evidence obtained due to unlawful traffic stop and arrest of the suspect violating the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. Another issue involves evidence obtained from an unreasonable search in the suspect's house violating Fourth Amendment rights.
The attorney of the suspected man to have shot and killed a man in the store can raise the issue in the motion of how the defendant was arrested in traffic and placed at the back of a police patrol car. Stopping and arresting an individual in traffic is unconstitutional and violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the suspect. The evidence collected after stopping and arresting the suspect while in traffic is considered illegal because it was obtained through unlawful means and should not be used for prosecuting the defendant. Another issue that could be raised to help suppress the evidence is the information obtained by Fillmore, a detective, after visiting the apartment where the suspect lived. Fillmore illegally got information from the defendant's wife concerning the gun ownership by the suspect by violating the Fourth Amendment rights. People, including the suspects, should not be arrested or frisked while in their homes unless the police obtain proper rules and laws such as arrest warrants. The attorney can raise the issue in the motion to suppress evidence that the detective visited the suspect's apartment and asked the wife questions that later revealed that the defendant had a gun.
What special issues should be addressed in preparing the case for trial?
When preparing for the murder case trial, several issues need to be addressed effectively before prosecution begins. One of the most critical issues to address when preparing for a trial is to find out whether the collected evidence is admissible (Antwi-Boasiako & Venter, 2017). When preparing for a trial, the primary task is working with facts; there is a need to organize, identify and locate additional evidence and plan practical ways to present them. Planning for objection is another special issue that needs to be addressed when preparing for a case trial. Evidence does no good to an individual unless presented before the jury, and because of that, one needs to prepare and maximize the likelihood that evidence will be accepted. The preparation of the evidentiary side involves separating two types of evidence rules; those used to exclude evidence and those requiring foundation. Filling the gaps in the case is another critical issue that needs to be addressed when preparing for a case trial. Finding a fundamental weakness in a case is inevitable. One should bridge them and strengthen other aspects of the case to ensure that the argument carries the jury safely over the weak spots.
Considering the differences in the information provided by the witnesses in the selected murder case, organizing witnesses appropriately for trial is another crucial issue to factor in when preparing for the test. Managing witnesses properly play a critical role in ensuring that one presents a logical and understandable case that highlights strengths and hide weaknesses as much as possible. Getting professional legal help is another vital issue to consider in preparation for trial. During the prosecution proceedings, lawyers play a crucial role in ensuring that the defendants have their rights by objecting. Therefore, having a qualified and competent lawyer is a critical factor that one needs to consider when preparing for the trial of the case. Developing a theme concerning the subject is vital when preparing for a test. The theme enables a lawyer to identify strengths and weaknesses and those of the opponent.
References
Antwi-Boasiako, A., & Venter, H. (2017). A model for digital evidence admissibility assessment. International Conference on Digital Forensics , 23-38.
Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2016). Criminal investigation. Cengage learning.
Jones, A. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2015). A demonstrative helps opposing expert testimony sensitize jurors to the validity of scientific evidence. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(5) , 401-422.
Kerr, O. S. (2018). Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Tex. L. Rev., 97 , 767.
McEwen, T., & Regoeczi, W. (2015). Forensic evidence in homicide investigations and prosecutions. Journal of forensic sciences, 60(5) , 1188-1198.
Mojtahedi, D., Ioannou, M., & Hammond, L. (2018). Group size, misinformation and unanimity influences on co-witness judgements. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(5) , 844-865.
Sekhon, N. (2016). Mass Suppression: Aggregation and the Fourth Amendment. Ga. L. Rev., 51 , 429.
Sevier, J. (2015). Popularizing hearsay. Geo. LJ, 104 , 643.
Sunshine, J. S. (2017). Clients, Counsel, and Spouses: Case Studies at the Uncertain Junction of the Attorney-Client and Marital Privileges. Alb. L. Rev., 81 , 489.
Surette, R. (2015). Performance crime and justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(2) , 195-216.
