Posted: February 14th, 2023

Burglary and Stealing: Rules of Evidence in a Case

Burglary and Stealing: Rules of Evidence in a Case

Introduction
In the United States, like many jurisdictions around the world, trials remain to be very meaningful accomplishment in the administration of justice within the society. Their meaning is placed on the symbolic value they give and the action that takes place to prove that an individual or an entity is justified or guilty of committing an act that made an impact within the larger social value system. As such, there are elaborate processes to guide the court and its actors in the process of dispensing justice. Justice, as a concept within the social value system is an important factor used to maintain societal order and create avenues for interaction between different group, ultimately aimed towards the growth of an individual or society as a whole. The criminal justice system, is a section of the justice system aimed at identifying crime and actions that are unjustly done on others.
It is also meant to provide avenues for people wronged to gain justice. Trials within the law, are processes associated with accountability and application of law. In the society, laws are meant to govern the action of its members, as such, courts are subjected to public accountability. Due process is a byproduct of public accountability that subjects the court and its representatives; the aggrieved parties, whether it is the plaintiff or the government, or the defendant to a just process of determining the ethical, moral or lawfulness of the controversies established. In most democracies, a person is not declared guilty until proven so within a court of law.
There is jurisprudence established within the court to guide the actions of all its members so as to maintain equity and justice. In the established case study to be reviewed and analyzed below, this brief essay aims to identify the procedural rules, and due process applied to justify the defendant as guilty in the eyes of the plaintiff and the government prosecutor who represent the law/ presumed aggrieved party.
Five Types of Evidences Established
Evidence is an important element within a court of law. Within a court of law, evidence is required, applied and can be used to establish the guilty or innocence of a crime or accusation levelled against a defendant. Clarkson Miller and Cross (2018) identify that it is a body of information that is used to establish the extent to which a party’s action is legal or illegal within a jurisdiction. There are generally various established rules that guide the ability for evidence to be used and become admissible before the court of law. The first and most important rule is that evidence should be relevant to the investigation at hand. It should be related to the case at hand. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identify evidence, as such, consist of physical objects, testimonies, documentaries, etc., that are aimed to prove or disapprove the existence of fact. Evidence can be summarized into either indirect or circumstantial, testimonial and physical, prima facie or hearsay evidence (Lomer, 2016).
Possible Evidence in Fred’s Case:
Detective Cleveland went on a door to door interview. He found two women who had given a good description of a man in his twenties running down the streets on the night in question. They identify that he had some kind of bag and had some kind of wrapping around his hand. One of the women identify that she had a clear view of the suspect under the bright street light which allowed him to positively identify the suspect when she was provided with a variety of photos to choose from. This is referred to as indirect evidence. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identify that direct evidence is first hand evidence which does not require any inference to be created so as to establish proposition of the fact. This includes witness testimonies who saw something. Lomer (2016) identifies that in most cases, this types of testimony do not establish truth. Witness can be confused or misguided.
Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence, is established by the trier of the fact to infer the existence of some fact in a controversy (Neubauer and Fradella 2018). Detectives could infer that the defendant Fred, committed the burglary since his blood was found at the scene of the crime. Additionally, Fred identifies to Detective Cleveland, that he had his injuries treated at the local emergency room. His injuries match the injuries that may have been acquired at the crime scene as a result of trying to pry the victim’s door open using the pry bar. More so, they could establish that he is the key suspect since the exact tool used to commit the crime, the pry bar, and the indentation made by the markings on the pry bar which appeared to say ACE, matched with pry bar found in the defendant’s car which included the ACE marking.
There were two key witnesses who revealed to the detectives that they saw a man ran from Tyler’s house on the night of the burglary. Testimonial evidence is oral demonstration that is given under oath (Neubauer and Fradella 2018). In this regard, Detective Cleveland, could use the two women who he discovered in the door-to-door questioning to establish testimonial evidence that Fred was indeed the suspect in the night in question. As already established, one could directly identify him to the scene of the crime, while another could identify him using the injuries and the nature and size of goods he had on in his hands as he ran from Tyler’s house. One woman identifies that she saw a man run, the man in question had a wrapping in his hand and in the other hand, he was carrying a bag. This would work together to point to Fred as the key suspect.
Perhaps the most useful in this regard would be the physical evidence. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identify that physical evidence also referred to as the real evidence is the tangible evidence which includes the components directly related to the investigation. Tyler identifies that someone broke into his house took his laptop which has a customized cover with a picture of the Enterprise aircraft carrier. They also made away with small Sharp brand flat screen television, and some inexpensive jewelry. When the detective Cleveland was able to find Fred, they discovered with him a laptop with the Enterprise aircraft carrier cover on it. Tyler positively identified the laptop as his own. They additionally, applied for a search warrant into Fred’s car and found the pry bar which the laboratories matched to the scene of the crime. These two findings can be presented in court as exhibits of physical objects. They could be used to further indict Fred as he was directly tied to them.
Prima Facie evidence mainly dwells in first appearance. Lomer (2016) identifies that this this is the type of evidence that is used to present the defendant as guilty mainly dwelling on first appearances. It is also referred to as presumptive evidence. It is mainly used in the pretrial motions to establish the party as a guilty party. Fred matched the description of all the witnesses identified. He had a wound in his hand, that could be directly matched to a wound one would get from a pry bar breaking down a door. He was found with Tyler’s computer, which is enough to infer to his guilt despite the fact that he was not found with the other stolen items such as the jewelry and the small television. Fred additionally, had the exact pry bar used to break down Tyler’s door and illegally access his house.
Detective Cleveland, applied the evidence provided by two women to tie Fred into the crime. During the pretrial motions, hearsay evidence may be submitted to indict Fred. Hearsay evidence represents statements made by witnesses who are not present in court. In most case the statement is not admissible in court (Lomer, 2016). It is nonetheless very valuable in investigation into the actions.
Witness Management and Reliability Assessment
Witness testimony is the oral account of the events and facts of the crime that offer better knowledge into the case. This is a crucial factor for investigators, as it helps them tie the crime to other relevant facts as well as helping investigators create reasonable charges against a defendant. Gehl and Plecas (2017) identifies that it is important to note that different types of witnesses may provide testimonial evidence from different perspectives and as such, it becomes important for investigators to assess their perspectives thoroughly to establish the facts of the crime. In the aforementioned case, there are two women who identify to have seen a man running down the streets near Tyler’s house. The man had a bag and a wrapped hand. One of them does not identify to have seen Fred. Another, when taken to the police station identifies that to be Fred. She points out to the fact that the streetlights made Fred visible.
The witnesses identified in both scenarios did not see Fred actually commit the crime. Gehl and Plecas (2017) identifies that there are two types of witnesses within a crime, the eye witness and the corroborative witnesses. The eye witness is someone who actually saw Fred prying open Tyler’s door, enter the house and come out with the valuables. No one saw this happen. On the other hand, the two corroborative witnesses provide valuable circumstantial evidence. The two corroborative witnesses provide circumstantial assumption that the man running with a wrapping in his hand and a bag in the other fits Fred’s description as he was near the scene of the crime. Unlike eye witness testimonial evidence, corroborative witness testimonial evidence weights less before the court of law.
Rules of evidence in this regard state that in most cases, witnesses during a trial can have their personal characters attacked and critically scrutinized in order to assess their honesty and provide their credibility (Bruinsma and Weisburd, 2016). In this regard, there are various factors used to consider in order for the court to assess and accept witness testimony as credible before the law. Gelh (2017) identifies that most the investigators should consider the following factors in order to create a credible witness;
1. Law abiding and an upstanding citizen
2. Consider witness bias and motivation to lie (especially if they have relations to the victim)
3. Witness’ involvement and emotional impact (testimony could be an emotional response to the action as such become less trusted).
4. Location when observing the event in question (direct proximity is highly valued).
5. Awareness of the crime; in the case where the witness was aware of the crime being committed their memory is much more reliable than when they were not alerted to the crime at hand. As such awareness supersedes the later
6. Length of the observation time matters as the memory is liable to distortion. The longer the opportunity to observe the crime the better and long standing a person’s memory is.
7. The time elapsed between the crime and witness interview also matters as the witness may have less vivid detail as time progresses.
8. Physical ability of the witness and their age is also important as it directly impacts their ability to actively recount the details.
In Fred’s instance, there are a variety of factors that may hinder the witness testimony from being considered within the court of law. The witness had no direct proximity with the defendant and as such they cannot identify him accurately. Gehl and Plecas (2017) identifies that proximity is much more valued in the court of law as it has more merit. Instead the witness identifies to only see him run and that the defendant only became visible as they passed the streetlight. There is a higher likelihood for misinformation in this regard since it was at night and the defendant was running. There was additionally little observation time due to the fact that the defendant was running. Both witnesses did not have a considerable time to observe the defendant. Additionally, the witnesses were not aware of the crime being committed. Gehl and Plecas (2017) identifies that awareness to crime brings more detailed and reliable memory. This could not be achieved as they were startled by the alleged defendant running from the scene of the crime. Also the defendant may argue the likelihood of a high emotional impact and relation with the victim. Detective Cleveland identifies that the witnesses were Tyler’s neighbors, he was able to identify them after he conducted a door-to-door interview within the neighborhood. There is a likelihood that they are familiar with Tyler and as such are motivated to show greater empathy to his plight. All this factors play a role in discrediting the witness further in the court of law.
Effects of Hearsay
Any statement can be discredited or designated as hearsay evidence, especially if the statement is made by a witness not directly linked to the crime. Lomer (2016) identifies hearsay as statement made by witnesses who were not present during the commission of the crime. Friedenthal et al. (2013) identifies that it is not upon the judge to object on hearsay testimony rather the judge is compelled to rule against a witness’ testimony after it has been objected by the defendant. The defendant will need to attack the witness character by seeking to prove if they were aware of the crime or if they actively witnessed firsthand the commission of the crime. None of the witness saw this. Both witnesses were not present at the scene of the crime. As such, their testimonies do not hold water before the court of law as they are corroborative testimonies. At the same time, there is no eye witness testimony to support their corroborative statements. Ryskamp (2019) identifies that hearsay testimonies are rarely depended upon within the court of law. The witnesses’ statement could be designated as hearsay and be compelled useless before the court of law.
Privileges in Criminal Cases
When detective Cleveland entered Fred’s house he found the laptop and this compelled him to arrest Fred. On the other hand, Tyler reported that a Sharp brand television was stolen as well as jewelry. None of this were reported to be found in possession of Fred. Fred additionally does not provide admission of guilt as such, places this responsibility to the prosecutors. He identifies that he went to the local emergency for treatment and bandaging of the hand. On the other hand, he does not admit to any guilt even when the laptop is found in his kitchen area and positively identified by Tyler as his missing laptop. This does not make him guilty but only works to provide strong evidence against Fred’s innocence. Constitutional privileges specified within the fifth amendment give the defendant the right not to self-incriminate and be compelled to accept responsibility for the crime, the court is supposed to proof his guilt (Nance, 2016). In this regard, Fred is bestowed the constitutional privileges and the evidentiary privileges that covers all communication with his lawyer and his right not to accept responsibility of the crime simply because he has been compelled.
The concept of Burden of Proof beyond reasonable doubt manifests and becomes essential in establishing whether Fred is guilty. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identify that burden of proof (burden of production and persuasion) requires that the plaintiff must put facts in issue and establish controversy and obligates the aggrieved party to provide facts beyond all reasonable doubt, through the use of evidence that the defendant is guilty. This is meant to protect Fred from targeted and unjust accusation as there is yet to be established with clarity that Fred committed the crime.
What issues may be raised in a motion to suppress regarding evidence seized in the case selected?
Issues that may be raised in a motion to suppress the evidence could be based on the fact that detective Tyler had no warranty to enter and search Fred’s house. Suppression and exclusion of all evidence, physical and testimonial, obtained or derived from the investigation is not possible in this regard. This is because all the evidence collection was done legally as such, they cannot be excluded. Detective Cleveland gained permission to enter Fred’s house from Fred himself. Within the house, he saw the stolen laptop and was compelled to arrest Fred. He also applied for a warranty to search Fred’s car based on the fact that a witness positively identified Fred, based on the fact that Fred’s wound and bandage fit a description from a second witness and also based on the fact that he had found Tyler’s laptop in Fred’s kitchen upon entry. Warranty justified his forceful breach into Fred’s trunk and did not need him to require any permission from Fred.
What special issues should be addressed in preparing the case for trial?
During the preliminary hearings there is need for the prosecution to prove that a crime was committed. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identify that in most cases, prosecution need to prove to the judge rather than a jury that there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime. Here they will need to bring forth the charges in and state them to the witness, and provide that he has understood the nature of crime he is being accused of. They will also need to arraign the defendant. This implies that they provide the defendant with the person bringing forth the accusation against him. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identifies that the defendant has a right to know their accusers. The prosecution also needs to provide all evidence before the court. This will include the two witnesses for cross-examination. The judge is then compelled to make a decision on the evidence either use or suppress the evidence this is the pretrial motions (Neubauer and Fradella, 2018). Here the process used to gather the evidence by the police is evaluated and assessed. If it was lawful then the judge sets a date for the trial. Neubauer and Fradella (2018) identify that trials could be lengthy and costly for both sides. In order to avoid trials, the prosecution based on the evidence may put for a plea deal for the defendant to accept. Plea bargains consider all gathered information and provides the defendant with a deal of a reduced sentence or fine in the event that they agree to their crime.

References
Bruinsma, Gerben, and David Weisburd. (2016) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer Reference: ISBN 978-1-4614-5690-2 (Ebook).
Clarkson, K., Miller, R., and Cross, (2018). Business Law Texts And Cases. 14th ed. Boston: C Cengage Learning.
Friedenthal, J. H., Miller, A. R., Sexton, J. E., & Hershkoff, H. (2013). Civil procedure: Cases and materials. West Academic Publishing.
Gehl, R., & Plecas, D. (2017). Introduction to criminal investigation: Processes, practices and thinking. Pressbook.
Lomer. (2016). 15 types of evidence and how to use them in investigations. i-Sight. https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/
Nance, D. A. (2016). The burdens of proof: Discriminatory power, the weight of evidence, and tenacity of belief. Cambridge University Press.
Ryskamp, J.D., D. A. (2019,). Expert witness hearsay: What is admissible? Retrieved from https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/expert-witness-hearsay-what-is-admissible/
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Cengage Learning.