Winston Hanson
Individual Project Unit 1
August 24, 2007
Explain the differences between the three types of evidence and provide a typical example of each.
Generally, there are three types of evidence: direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and hearsay evidence. Of these three types of evidence, direct evidence usually carries the greatest weight in determining the innocence of guilt of a suspect and more so when this is supported by circumstantial and hearsay evidence. However, direct evidence also constitutes the most difficult to obtain.
Direct evidence constitutes proof referring to the facts subject of dispute. Due to the close proximity of this evidence to the crime circumstances under investigation, this makes up best evidence and overshadows other evidence. (, 1997; , 1998) In the case of a robbery, direct evidence would be a videotape taken by the installed security cameras of the jewelry store showing the perpetrator breaking the glass cases and placing these into his knapsack before fleeing the site. In the case of attempted homicide, direct evidence would be the testimony of a survivor positively identifying the perpetrator from a line of people or a number of pictures. In other cases, direct evidence would be fingerprints to place the accused in the location of the crime or blood samples taken from the crime scene as evidence of the suspect being in the location of the crime. In other crimes, a certified copy of a birth certificate constitutes evidence of the age of the suspect, significant in the resolution of cases involving age. Employment records also constitute evidence of the location of a suspect in criminal cases requiring the location or time.
Circumstantial evidence pertains to proof that allows the establishment of facts based on inference. These are proof of facts that control decisions of criminal cases by using other connected facts. (, 1997; , 1998) Due to the nature of this type of evidence, the aggregate of all existing circumstantial evidence should be of great weight to support the fact of the guilt or innocence of the accused relative to the claim of a complainant, witnesses or law enforcement investigators. When taken together with direct evidence, the bulk of evidence would greatly control the filing of cases and the resolution of these cases by the courts. In the robbery case, circumstantial evidence would include testimonies of witnesses describing an individual fleeing the scene of the crime at the time of commission that matches the description of the suspect or describing a vehicle or plate number seen fleeing the crime scene at the time that the crime was committed. In the case of homicide or attempted homicide, the presence of the suspect within the vicinity of the location of the crime together at the time of the killing constitutes circumstantial evidence. A person seen as arguing with the homicide victim prior to the killing also constitutes circumstantial evidence. The particular behavior of suspects when reasonably perceived could constitute circumstantial evidence. A person running away from the direction of a store with a tripped blaring alarm could constitute circumstantial evidence of theft. In the case of documents, school records or church baptismal certificates constitute circumstantial evidence of a person’s identity such as age or marital status. These documents constitute circumstantial evidence because these do not primarily work as evidence of age or marital status unlike a birth or marriage certificate.
Hearsay evidence refers to proof constituted by reports by other people other than the persons who directly observed or witnessed the commission of the crime. (, 1997; , 1998) Due to the lesser proximity of this type of evidence to the facts of the case, the resolution of cases usually place greater weight on the testimonies of direct observers more than secondary sources. This is because direct testimonies carry higher levels of validity and reliability more than hearsay records. Commonly, hearsay evidence serve to support first hand testimonies or lead to the identification of potential witnesses who have observed the commission of the crime or the circumstances resulting to the commission of the crime. In the case of robbery, hearsay evidence would be the testimony of a restaurant employee who heard a group of men talking about a bank robbery a few days before an actual bank robbery. The report made by a law enforcement authority on the statements given by a person questioned regarding the commission of circumstances surrounding the crime. A report given by an inmate regarding the commission of another crime by a fellow inmate that corresponds to an unsolved crime constitutes hearsay evidence. A report made by a neighbor regarding an argument ensuing between two people inside the premises with one of the arguing arties posing a threat to the other person before the death of the threatened individual could constitute hearsay evidence. In considering hearsay evidence, the accused or suspect should refute hearsay evidence. If a suspect is confronted with hearsay evidence but fails to refute this, then together with other evidence such as the actions or statement of the suspect would make enhance the weight of hearsay evidence.
There are differences in the nature and weight of direct, circumstantial and hearsay evidence. However, even with these differences, the consideration of the value or weight of evidence is not necessarily easy or simple. This finds exemplification in the sexual assault case filed against the NBA icon Kobe Bryant in July 2003. Direct evidence presented in this case includes the statements of the victim but this was not presented in court since the prosecution dropped the criminal charges because of the refusal of the victim to testify in court (, 2004). Nevertheless, the testimony still constitutes direct evidence accorded with relative great weight by the criminal court. Another direct evidence is the blood and semen samples taken from the underwear and person of the victim during physical and medical examination. Although blood matched the victim’s blood type, the semen did not match that of the accused. Due to this disparity, the prosecution presented the blood evidence to support the claim that the bleeding was due to the sexual assault committed by the accused on the claimant. This was disputed by the defense by using the semen of an unknown individual as a means to counter the blood evidence. (, 2003) Moreover, the defense also questioned the blood evidence by posing the question on whether the victim’s intercourse with three individuals could have caused the bleeding and not necessarily the claimed sexual assault. Although, Colorado has a rape shield law that bars the sexual activities of the victim from presentation as evidence, this bar is not without exceptions depending upon the consideration of the courts on whether the specific sexual activities being presented against the victim constitutes compelling evidence significant in the resolution of the case ( and , 1991).
Due to the dropping of the case, the evidential issue on whether the bleeding could be caused by the sexual intercourse of the victim with three people in three days within which the alleged sexual assault was committed could have caused the bleeding and not necessarily the alleged sexual assault since the defense claims that the sexual intercourse was consensual.
Based on the details of the case, it seems that the resolution of this question and the presentation of the blood evidence by the defense as proof of sexual intercourse with three different individuals within just a span of three days to counter the presentation of the blood evidence by the prosecution as proof of the sexual assault could have been put into consideration by the court. This is because the blood constitutes direct evidence but there is need to determine what facts or circumstances do the blood serve evidence. Had the criminal case proceeded, the court could have done so.
The semen that does not match the sample given by accused constitutes a weakness in the case of the prosecution. However, this could have been countered by the testimony of the victim constituting compelling evidence of the sexual assault. This also constitutes direct evidence that would have been given relatively great weight by the court. Since the victim refused to testify in court, the prosecution found a weak case in relying on the blood evidence alone, especially since the reliability of the DNA testing was accepted by both parties. The case involved the controversy over blood offered as direct evidence and showed that direct evidence significantly sway the resolution of cases and that a direct evidence can be countered by another direct evidence of equivalent weight.
References
Winston Hanson
Discussion Board Unit 1
August 24, 2007
1. Should circumstantial evidence be the sole basis for a conviction in capital cases?
Circumstantial evidence could be the sole basis for a conviction in capital cases. This works by deriving evidence on facts to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused based on a reasonable consideration of the circumstantial evidence relative to the known facts. Apart from the possibility of drawing reliable support for facts, courts mostly deal with circumstantial evidence since perpetrators commonly practice conscious efforts not to leave direct evidence for the police to find. Due to the difficulty in obtaining direct evidence, circumstantial evidence becomes important in the resolution of cases. Capital cases entail the most serious penalties so that utmost diligence is expected from the courts in determining the weight of evidence, circumstantial evidence if constitutive of compelling evidence could support the resolution of the case. This is not to say that lesser diligence is required in less serious offenses but that the decisions in capital cases could mean the loss of life or liberty of accused individuals.
Apart from the greater of availability of circumstantial evidence relative to direct evidence, circumstantial evidence offers the advantage of being less susceptible to fabrication or suppression. This is because circumstantial evidence is most often not subject to conscious consideration or cover-up by the accused. This means that circumstantial evidence accorded with high degree of reliability could support case resolution, even those involving capital crimes. In . v (1998), the conviction of the accused on eleven counts including eight counts of first-degree murder for the Oklahoma City bombing. Circumstantial evidence included the identification of the accused as the person that rented the car found as the containing the bomb through a rear axle. Employees of the car rental helped the police in drawing a sketch of the person that rented the car and this significantly matched the features of the accused. During his arrest, circumstantial evidence also included the behavior of the accused. During his arrest he was the wearing a shirt, printed on the front is the Virginia state motto, which was also the statement issued by Booth after killing Abraham Lincoln. Apart from this, McVeigh’s background also supported his capability and motive in committing the bombing. He was a former marine with knowledge in making bombs together with a drug-abuse history and violent tendencies for causes related to the building and the people killed in the bombing. Aggregate circumstantial evidence supported the conviction.
v (2000) also provides that circumstantial evidence could support the determination of court cases but the circumstantial evidence should coincide with the guilt of the defendant and inconsistent with the other reasonable conclusion. This means that while circumstantial evidence can solely support the resolution of capital cases, the volume and quality of circumstantial evidence should weigh towards the guilt of the accused so that the courts can reasonably resolve capital cases through the conviction of accused individuals. If circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to support the decision in the case, then the courts cannot solely depend on this type of evidence.
2. What is your stand on the use of inferences and presumptions?
Conviction standards should extend beyond mere inferences and presumptions to enhance the role and importance of the criminal justice system even if inferences and presumptions also contribute, when taken together with other evidence, to the resolution of criminal cases. Conviction standards that developed in criminal law fall under three classifications differentiated according to the degree of proof required. The minimum standard is preponderance of evidence that determines whether the evidence weights more towards one conclusion or the other as basis for the decision. Inferences and presumptions that are not accompanied by other proof falls under this standard of proof. A medium standard of proof is clear and convincing proof that requires a greater degree of evidence. Inferences and presumptions could support the achievement of this standard of proof if taken together with other evidence. The highest standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt that requires a high level of evidence to support conviction. Inferences and presumptions fall under this standard of proof only if supported by positive and strong evidence of guilt. ( and , 2006) In criminal law, the standard of proof based on the constitutional terms is the standard of evidence showing guild beyond reasonable doubt (, 2005). Inferences and presumptions should constitute the framework upon which evidence is collected, analyzed and applied to the resolution of the case but these should not be used on their own to support the resolution of criminal cases. Otherwise, the parties involved in the resolution of the case may be in violation of constitutional provisions and jurisprudence.
References
Secondary Source
Cases
Winston Hanson
Individual Project Unit 2
August 24, 2007
The purpose of the preliminary hearing is the determination by the judge of the existence of sufficient evidence to raise the case to the upper court for trial (, 1997; , 2001; , 2006). During this process, the judge determines two things: one is the existence of probable cause in believing that the crime subject of the compliant was committed and the other is probable cause in believing that the accused presented before the court has committed the crime. ( and , 2006) Since the positive identification of the identity of the robber was made by the victim before dying and the identification was made in front of the judge, prosecution and defense, the testimony of the victim could be used as evidence in the trial since there were no questions over the state of mind of the witness during the examination and cross-examination that positively identified the perpetrator. Moreover, the positive identification constitutes direct evidence to the crime ( v , 1975) and even if the victim eventually died, the weight or value of the evidence remains.
Even if the series of robberies and killings stopped after the arrest of the defendant, this cannot be used as evidence for the other robbery and homicide incidents. This constitutes a circumstantial evidence that in some instances, such as in these particular situations cannot stand on its own to support the case covering the other incidents. The ballistic evidence may provide proof that similar caliber weapons were used in the series of robberies and homicides but this does not provide strong evidence that the accused committed the other robberies and homicides, especially without a weapon traceable to the accused.
Reference
Secondary Sources
Case
Winston Hanson
Discussion Board Unit 2
August 24, 2007
The testimony of expert witnesses may be allowed subject to the test of standards (, 2002), particularly the Daubert standard that tests the relevance and reliability of the testimonies of expert witnesses in determining whether to include the testimonies as evidence. Only if the testimonies pass the relevance and reliability test that these may be included as evidence. The Daubert standard also pertains to scientific evidence so that the reliability of the testimonies of expert witnesses depends upon their expertise on a particular scientific knowledge or evidence.
This case involved a case filed against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. due to the birth defects caused by its drug Bendectin intended for nausea in pregnant women. During the trial, the pharmaceutical company presented expert evidence showing that ingesting the drug during pregnancy causes birth defects. This was refuted by the claimant by presenting an expert testimony based on eight animal testing studies indicating an adverse effect of the drug to unborn children. The lower court decided in favor of the respondent because the expert evidence presented by the claimant do not hold any general acceptance in the scientific field and the studies were not also peer reviewed. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appellate court for consideration by applying the two-pronged test of relevance and reliability. Based on these tests, the appellate court still decided in favor of pharmaceutical company. This means that the testimonies of expert witnesses become admissible as evidence only in instances when the testimony has been found by the court to be both reliable and relevant to the case. Reliability may be supported by expert opinions that are generally accepted or peer reviewed and relevance pertains to the materiality of the testimony to the resolution of the case.
In the succeeding case of . v (1999), the court again applied the Daubert standard in determining the merit of the testimonies of expert witnesses. In this case, Carmichael met a vehicular accident after the right-rear tire exploded resulting to injuries to one of the passengers. After three months, he filed a case against the manufacturer of the tire based on the claim that the tire sold by the manufacturer was defective. The cases primarily rested on the testimony of a witness with expertise on tires. The testimony of the expert witness relied on existing tire technology together with the factual background on the model of the tire used in the claimant’s vehicle. The tire manufacturing company did not dispute the use of existing technology to test the tires but the tire manufacturer vigorously disputed the conclusion that the tires were defective. In the lower court, the decision was in favor of the tire manufacturer because the methods of the expert witness were not scientifically valid. On appeal, the court reversed this and decided in favor of the acceptability of the evidence since expertise also included knowledge and skills by experience. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of the expert witness could not be included as evidence because the Daubert standard applied only to scientific expert evidence. Since the expert witness relied heavily on experience and observation that no other factors that could have caused the tire explosion, these do not meet the standard. This means that the testimony of expert witnesses become acceptable if their statements refer to scientific theories and results of empirical studies.
References
Secondary Source
Cases
Individual Project Unit 3
August 24, 2007
1. In the given case, the determination of the validity of the evidence against the defendant depends on the consideration of three factors. First is the proximity of the illegal detention to the evidence collected. . v (1994) provides that the prosecution should prove intervention or break in the causal link between the alleged illegality and the concurrent evidence derived from the situation. This means that if the evidence was collected directly on account of the illegal detection without any intervening factors, then the admissibility of the evidence may be questioned in court. Second is the existence of intervening variables breaking the causal chain of illegal action and evidence collection ( v , 1997) such as when the person illegally detained was released on account of which the person voluntarily acceded to inquiries or request for information. Third covers the nature, extent and circumstances surrounding the illegal act and the collection of evidence ( v , 1975). This means that the acceptability of the evidence obtained in the commission of an illegal action depends upon the severity of the illegal act and the extent of influence that this has on the process of evidence collection and the evidence collected. In application to the given case, it appears that the illegal detention was not as closely connected to the collection of evidence for the case since the illegal detention resulted to the collection of evidence to support the filing of a case but the complainant was also able to positively identify the defendant during the trial. This indicates an intervening event, particularly the positive identification by the complainant of the defendants as the perpetrator during the case that validated the identification during the investigation. This means that the case now primarily depended on the in-court identification and other evidence presented and the in-court evidence cannot then be invalidated.
2. The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence obtained due to information that was retrieved illegally cannot be validly included as evidence. This emanates from the rationale that when the source has been tainted, anything that is derived from that source would also be tainted, which in application to evidence makes proof retrieved in this situation tainted. This doctrine applies as a preventive measure for the possible use of illegally derived evidence and to encourage law enforcement authorities to obtain evidence within legal bounds. (. v , 1920) However, there are three exceptions to this doctrine so that evidence obtained illegally will become admissible in the following instances: 1) evidence was partly discovered from an untainted source; 2) evidence could have been discovered outside of the tainted source; or 3) causation relationship arising between the illegal act and the tainting of evidence has been weakened through intervening factors. (, 2006) In application to the given case, the doctrine applies and the evidence should be suppressed because there was a direct causal connection between the illegal arrest and the derivation of tainted evidence. There is also no evidence that the police would have learned about the robbery had they not illegally arrested Watson causing the need to find people to take care of his pets while he is under police custody.
3. The cased in point covering instances when incriminating testimony is obtained through a police informant placed in the custody with a suspect are . v (1980) and v (1986). In . v (1980), a paid informant was placed with the federal inmates to listen to the statements given by the prisoners but without initiating leading conversations. However, the information befriended the defendant resulting to the drawing of information on the case. The informant then testified against the defendant but this was rendered inadmissible because there was a deliberate move to draw information. In v (1986), an informant was placed to listen to the conversations of the defendant without engaging the latter in conversation. The informant never questioned or spoke to the defendant but heard the defendant’s admission to the crime. This time the court held the testimony as acceptable because there was no move to deliberately obtain incriminating information. In application to the given case the situation where the informant merely listened to the conversations of the defendant or deliberately placed in a spot to be able to overhear conversations, the testimony of the informant is acceptable as evidence. In the scenario where the informant engaged the defendant in conversation to draw incriminating information, the testimony of the informant is unacceptable as evidence because of the deliberate plot to obtain incriminating information that violated the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant.
4. Consideration of the admissibility of statements and evidence obtained during police questioning depends upon whether the evidence collected are self-incriminating, the questioning constituted an interrogation, and the interrogation was done with Miranda warning. v (1980) provides that interrogation covers not only the express questioning by police authorities but also the uttering or words or doing of actions by police officers that they know would draw incriminating evidence from the suspect. In this case, the court held that the situation was not an interrogation because the police officers engaged the suspect in mere conversation. The evidence obtained was admissible since even if there was no Miranda warning the conversation did not constitute an interrogation. However, v (1984) provides the exception of public safety in making evidence collected during an interrogation without a Miranda warning admissible. In application to the given case, the statements made by the defendant and the gun confiscated cannot be admitted in evidence because there was no Miranda warning when the interrogation was made. There was interrogation because the suspect was deemed in custody and there was an indication of compulsion when the police officers had to ask the location of the gun for the second time. Also, there appears to be no public safety issue to support the application of the exception.
References
Secondary Source
Cases
Winston Hanson
Discussion Board Unit 3
August 26, 2007
Admissions and stipulations in criminal cases are processes involving the collaboration of both parties covering facts and other relevant factors for the purpose of expediting the resolution of the case. Admissions are statements made involving the case by the parties sought to be admitted as evidence while stipulations constitutes the agreement between the opposing parties prior to the trial regarding facts or admissions to be excluded from the hearing ( and , 2006; , 2006). After reaching an agreement, this would be raised to the court for resolution on admissibility. Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that admissions may be the statement of one the parties or statements to which one of the parties accrue great belief. Since admissions are statements made by any one of the parties, the court has to consider whether these are obtained or given in order to determine the reliability of the statements and whether these are material to the resolution of the case. Admission would be included as evidence if these are deemed to be given in order and material to the resolution of the case. Stipulations are agreements on facts or other things constituting the limit of the trial or making-up the items not to be brought up in trial. Before the court could accept the stipulations, it should consider whether the stipulations were derived without any undue pressure from any of the parties to the other party and whether the stipulations really significantly aid in the resolution of the case. If so, then stipulations are accepted for compliance by the parties. Overall, the courts play the role of legal guardians in settling the merit of admissions and stipulations.
References
Secondary Sources
Legislation
Winston Hanson
Individual Project Unit 4
August 27, 2007
1. Eyewitness identification is an important aspect of criminal justice because this provides valuable evidence of the commission of a crime and/or of the perpetrator. Due to its value, this process is also delicate since reliability is achieved with the proper procedures and the certainty of the identification made by the eyewitness. In common practice, eyewitness identification is made through a photo line-up. In conducting a photo line-up it is important that the pictures are presented in a way that does not positively suggest a particular picture as the perpetrator. A number of practical things could be done to make the photo line-up less incriminating such as placing pictures together with similar sizes of the face, angles and other factors that lessens the pointing towards a single picture for identification. v (1978) adds that on-site identification carries greater reliability. v (1997) allowed suppression of evidence because the identification process was obviously suggestive. In the given case, only a single picture was shown to the undercover agent making this very suggestive of the suspected perpetrator. On-site identification could have provided greater reliability to cause the arrest of the defendant after the sale of illegal drugs and not two days after the incident. The in-court identification may be admitted as evidence because this constituted a personal identification different from the photo line-up. The conviction of the defendant for selling heroine could be affirmed because the flaw in the process of identification is not too grave to affect the other identification evidence.
2. The legality of a search depends in part on the consent of the premises or property being searched. However, this is subject to the rule that the actual search should comply with the scope and scale of search for which the consent was obtained. Any evidence obtained from beyond the scope and scale of the search could be inadmissible in evidence depending upon the particular circumstances of the case. In the given case, the police stopped a vehicle and requested permission to search the car on suspicion that the driver is carrying narcotics. By giving his consent, the police opened the passenger and found a paper bag containing cocaine. The brown paper bag is covered by the scope of the permission obtained because this involved the suspicion of the driver carrying narcotics and illegal drugs would necessarily be hidden and not in plain view. Searching compartments or covered items is necessarily covered by the request and the permission given by the vehicle driver. The evidence obtained should be admitted in evidence. However, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the consent for the evidence obtained was voluntarily given ( v , 1968; v , 1948)
3. v (1958) provides rules on the admissibility of audio evidence. The authenticity of audio evidence depends upon the existence of these seven rules: 1) the device used to record is capable of making the record presented in court; 2) the person operating the audio recording has the capability to make the recording; 3) the recording presented in court is correct; 4) the recording included as evidence is unaltered; 5) the recording presented in court is preserved to be the same unchanged recording; 6) the speakers in the recording have been identified; and 7) the conversations recorded have been made voluntarily. There is no indication that there was a violation of any of the rules provided above so that the Supreme Court may hold the audio evidence as properly used. Since the proper collection and use of audio evidence have been complied with making the audio evidence admissible in evidence, then together with material evidence sufficient to support conviction, the US Supreme Court may affirm Lorenz’ conviction for bribery.
4. Technology is important in criminal justice to enhance the reliability of police investigations. However, there are limitations to the use of technology because of constitutional rights such as privacy and right against self-incrimination. In v (2001), the court held that the use of thermal imaging technology to determine whether the defendant is growing marijuana in his home is deemed as a search and since the police did not have a search warrant in using this technology, evidence obtained was rendered inadmissible resulting to the acquittal of the defendant. The Passive Alcohol Sensor (PAS) obtains information that could be deemed as a search because of its self-enhancing functions. However, there are differences between thermal imaging and PAS. PAS is a sense-enhancing device similar to thermal imaging but PAS obtains information that the police officers could have obtained in other ways involving the consent of drivers. In addition, motor vehicles are accorded differently in terms of privacy issues than homes so that evidence obtained through the Passive Alcohol Sensor may be acceptable as evidence unlike the evidence obtained from thermal imaging technology.
References
Winston Hanson
Discussion Board Unit 4
August 26, 2007
Exigent circumstances refer to conditions that would builds the belief or supports the action of a reasonable person over the necessity of preventing physical harm to law enforcement officers or other people, preventing the destruction or loss of evidence, preventing the flight of suspects, or preventing other circumstances that affects the valid efforts of police officers in investigating a case ( v , 1984).
Exigent circumstances test the judgment of law enforcement authorities in determining whether to proceed with a search or arrest due to the emergence of an exigency or whether to wait for the warrant before acting. In Boulder, Colorado the DA made the statement that exigencies drive the timing of arrest. The statement referred to the investigation being made on Karr in relation to the murder of Ramsey. Karr went to Thailand to work as a teacher in an international school. The safety of the schoolchildren came up as an exigency for the arrest even if no formal charges have yet to be made. (, 2006)
In Wisconsin, the entry of a police of the garage of a person reported to be heavily drunk resulting to the arrest of the drunk-driver was upheld as constituting an exigent circumstance because the driver might need assistance or he may cause harm to himself and to other people. In the first case, exigency was used to make the arrest but there was no indication that evidence obtained due to the arrest was used to support the filing of charges while in the latter case the evidence obtained through the search was used as evidence against the defendant. In both cases, sound judgment was important.
References
Secondary Sources
Case
Winston Hanson
Group Project Unit 5
August 27, 2007
Crawford v Commonwealth (2000)
This case involved the presentation of DNA evidence to prove the crime of rape. In this case, the defendant entered a woman’s home in Virginia, held a knife in the throat of the woman, covered the woman’s eyes, and demanded money. When the woman replied that she did not have any money, the defendant then raped her before fleeing the site. The woman reported the incident to the police and provided her clothing and agreed to a physical exam for the collection of DNA evidence. Due to lack of suspects to match the semen DNA found on the clothing of the victim, the case remained unresolved for two years. A break in the case happened when an inmate in Washington, D.C. reported to the authorities that he heard Crawford talking about having raped a woman in Virginia and then fleeing to Maryland afterwards. Due to this statement, the police obtained a DNA sample from Crawford and matched this to the DNA sample found on the woman’s clothing.
According to the testimony of the DNA expert that conducted the test, the DNA of Crawford matched the DNA from the woman’s clothing on six points. This is deemed as a significant or positive match. The testimony of the expert was then presented to the jury as evidence without any objections from the defendant. The testimony mentioned the significance of the degree that the DNA samples matched and the process of matching DNA samples. Both the scientific process and interpretation of the results of the DNA test formed part of the testimony.
After the presentation of all evidence, including the testimony of the victim, the jury was instructed by the court through a statement that DNA testing is accorded reliability as a scientific technique by Virginia law in proving identity, which in this case is the assailant’s identity and in considering the weight given to the DNA evidence the jury should look into the processes and the results involved in the DNA test of the samples. After deliberation, the jury decided to convict Crawford. The defense appealed on the ground that the direction offered by the court on the reliability of DNA tests would lead the jury to place great weight on the DNA evidence that eventually resulted to the guilty verdict. The appellate court held that the court directive to the jury regarding the reliability of DNA testing was improper. The case was remanded back to the lower court for consideration.
Although the case was remanded back to the lower court due to the statement made by the court to the jury on the reliability of DNA tests, the case showed that scientific testimony such as the statements made by a DNA testing expert on the results of a DNA match could constitutes a reliable and relevant evidence consistent with the Daubert standard ( v , 1993; , 2005). In this case, the DNA testimony was relevant because it was able to determine the identity of the assailant and tie the defendant to the crime and the victim. DNA testimony is also reliable because this was not questioned by the defense. It was only the directive made by the court that was questioned by the defense.
It is also worth noting that there was a dissenting opinion in the decision of the appellate court providing that the decision of the jury should have been affirmed because DNA testing is recognized as a reliable scientific tool and although the weight of DNA results should be weighed on a case-by-case basis, in this given case the weight of the DNA match is towards the identification of the defendant as the assailant resulting to the guilty verdict.
The use of DNA evidence in criminal cases is valuable but its value greatly depends upon adherence to scientific methods and processes to come up with reliable results ( and , 2002; , 2005). Moreover, the results should also be used in adherence to legal procedures or practices to constitute relevant evidence in the resolution of criminal cases.
Based on the consideration of cases using scientific evidence to support the resolution of criminal cases, there are a number of basic tips for rookie officers in investigating a crime scene:
References
Secondary Sources
Cases
Winston Hanson
Discussion Board Unit 5
August 27, 2007
DNA evidence is becoming commonplace in the resolution of criminal cases because of technological innovations and the growing knowledge on DNA testing processes and result interpretation ( and , 2002; , 2003). However, developments in DNA evidence gave rise to various issues such as whether DNA evidence can solely stand as evidence for the resolution of cases. This issue cannot be resolved through a definitive yes or no answer since there are differences in the standards applied in DNA testing. There is just too much variability in DNA testing so that even if there are basic standards on DNA testing, it is still more rational to consider DNA evidence in the context of the processes and use as well as the facts of the case. In the case of bite marks, its weight as the sole or primary evidence in a case depends upon the circumstances of the case. In some instances, bite marks is sufficient but not in some cases. These results are both covered by v (1995) , where Krone was convicted for killing a bar owner based on the teeth impression left on the neck and breast of the victim that was matched to the teeth impressions of the defendant. On appeal, the case was remanded to the court because a videotape of the expert witness’ testimony was not disclosed to the defense until the presentation itself. When the case was remanded, the court again convicted the defendant. Krone served sentence for ten years until an evaluation of the case using more advanced DNA technology showed that based on the saliva taken from the bite marks on the victim, the perpetrator was not Krone but another inmate already serving sentence for child molestation. On one hand, DNA evidence such as a bite mark is not sufficient to convict a defendant if the processes used are still elementary that does not consider all factors such as teeth impressions, saliva and other DNA residue but on the other hand, bite marks is sufficient with advanced technology that positively points to the defendant based on matching teeth impressions, saliva, blood, and other corroborating forensic results.
References
Secondary Sources
Case
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment