Evidence in the legal field is very crucial in determining the fate of any criminal case. As such, it must be able to meet specific criteria and standards. First off, the evidence is of different types. Primarily this includes demonstrative evidence. This type of proof consists of the use of representative objects like photographs, video files, drawings, that back up the arguments made. The other kind of evidence is documentary evidence; which is any proof that can be presented in writing like contracts, invoices, and wills. Digital evidence is any evidence obtained electronically like email history, ATM transactions, and cell phone logs (Roberts & Zuckerman, 2010).
However, not all evidence is as valid as the public would like to believe. For instance, that eyewitnesses are highly reliable is a widely accepted misconception. This belief that is so much a part of the human culture due to the personal or firsthand experience has been ruled out by the fact that their statements are mostly corroborated or manipulated by factors like fear, blackmail, or own prejudice. The other widely accepted misconception is that a guilty plea is proof of guilt. The society for a long time took guilty pleas as evidence in court cases. They take comfort in knowing that most cases are solved through guilty pleas rather than trials. But the truth is, most of these pleas are either blackmail or cover up (Kassin, 2008). For evidence to be classified as substantial, it must meet the criteria of credibility. The source of evidence must be reliable and believable. The evidence must be established as authentic with a strong chain of circumstantial evidence. Such evidence must also be objective, to mean it must be observable in a scientific manner by any party. This means it must have a robust logical appeal. Sometimes human evidence is characterized by emotions. The evidence must have logic, not just emotion-driven (Zuckerman & Zuckerman, 1989).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
At the investigation stage, if the parties responsible are to miss out on any evidence, it could adversely affect the case during the trial. It could potentially result in ‘no evidence of effect,' a situation in which the prosecutor fails to provide substantial evidence to back their case. The result of such a situation could either be the conviction of an innocent party, or the dismissal of a potentially strong suit and the acquittal of a guilty party. In either case, the trial takes on a misguided judgment since there is no substantial evidence to direct the case (May, Waine, & May, 2004). Because of how much evidence impacts the outcome of any litigation or trial, it is vital that it is treated cautiously. Since evidence is highly vulnerable in its fundamental nature, it should be collected soonest before any factor tampers with it. This should follow the thorough documentation and marking of the crime scene. This means the first thing to do in assessing a crime scene is noticing any piece of evidence. The collection should start with the most fragile pieces of evidence. Special consideration should also be given to evidence that requires transportation. Then the preservation should follow the assessment and sorting of collected evidence, according to their nature (Newburn, Williamson, & Wright, 2012).
Should the investigation miss on any piece of evidence at the initial study of the crime scene, then it could significantly impact the outcome of the case. Some pieces of evidence are vulnerable and require special care, and should they go unnoticed for quite some time, they could lose their effectiveness, as in the case of liquid spoilage. Once a shred of evidence has lost its value, it affects the outcome of the trial in the sense that ‘evidence of no effect' could lead to the suspension of the case to allow for further investigations. Considering all these, it is correct to say that evidence plays a significant role in the determination of any trial outcome, and should, therefore, be handled with the greater care it deserves (Calvert, 1959).
Reference
Calvert, R. W. (1959). No Evidence and Insufficient Evidence Points of Error. Tex. L. Rev. , 38 , 361.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 35 (10), 1309-1322.
May, R., Powles, S., Waine, L., & May, R. (2004). Criminal evidence (p. 369). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Newburn, T., Williamson, T., & Wright, A. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of criminal investigation . Routledge.
Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal evidence . Oxford University Press.
Zuckerman, A. A., & Zuckerman, A. A. S. (1989). The principles of criminal evidence (Vol. 378). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
