Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Roles Of Evidence In Modern Day Criminal Investigations
Importance of witness testimony
Importance of witness testimony
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In any investigation, the evidence is very important, and thus any investigator always wishes to get the most accurate and reliable evidence. There are different types of evidence that are administered in a court of law although the validity of each is different since there are cases where evidence obtained cannot stand on its own. Witness evidence is considered key in a court of law since it can be directly administered on its own and a case decided upon its admissibility. Therefore, an investigator always aims to get a witness in a criminal case since witness evidence is vital in the decision made in criminal cases. Whoever there are cases where a witness is not cooperative or does not want to engage the investigators. This is a very delicate situation, which should be handled with the degree of importance required since the witness might be key in unraveling the plain truth regarding a given case (Robertson et.al, 2016, 21).
Thus the manner in which the witness and evidence are handled in this case is key since any missed steps would lead to tampering with evidence which will most likely render it non-admissible in a court of law. Thus, handling of witness and evidence is vital in ensuring that they are presented without any coercion or
…show more content…
In this case, to get any meaningful information from the witness and to get him or her to testify in a court of law against the suspects will require considerably more efforts. In this case, I would invoke the witness protection act where witnesses are accorded state protection in cases where their life may be in danger. Thus, the uncooperative nature of the witness may be due to the consequences of providing any meaningful information to the course of the investigation (Walton, 2008, p.
With all these possible flaws in the testimony of witnesses and victims why do they continue to use them as primary evidence in criminal cases? The answer is simple; until recently there was no other way to prove whether or not a person was actually at the scene of a crime unless someone saw them or they left some finger prints behind that the police were able to link back to someone, which may have not been left on the victim but in the general vicinity. Until recently, with the recent breakthrough in DNA testing which allows police and investigators to gain an exact match as to who committed the crime.
In criminal justice, detectives need many skills that help capture the suspect. One of the important skills is finding and presenting evidence. This is significantly important because according to the Criminal Justice
Whitley, Kyles was tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon review of his case, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to give evidence about a witness, a man named “Beanie”, and several other pieces of material evidence. Since these were not given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t released, the conviction was overturned. This is relevant to the dilemma because one of the areas that had importance to the defense was that the witness wasn’t consistent in their testimony and that led to issues with their effectiveness as a witness. Referring back to the dilemma and the officer’s conduct, the officer wasn’t consistent in their testimony, namely that they denied wrongdoing and later confessed. This shows that the officer is an inconsistent witness and that if this is discovered, and the prosecution must disclose that information, he can be impeached as a witness. This will mean that he is not as effective in the criminal justice
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
Pezdek, K. (2012, March). A Preliminary Study of How Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys Are Affected by Eyewitness Factors. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf
The court must find more evidence and not to depend on eyewitness testimony and to look for the best people as possible. Besides, there more evidence that DNA testing. Eyewitness must be proven in order to arrest the right suspect and question the suspect to get more evidence in steady of keeping in prison for false witness. The police for tracking everywhere the suspect went and people the suspect contact with that time. It will solve the problem by asking the eyewitness question and the suspect questions to see if both things they said
In the last forty years, there has been a shift in courtroom proceedings. Lawyers are not only focusing their evidence on the scientific aspects of an event, but also on those who may have witnessed the actual event as well. Recently, the number of eyewitness appearances in the courtroom has increased, making statements about either a crime or an event that occurred in their presence. But how does the courtroom decide who is a legitimate witness to an event? Too often, age, race, education, and socio-economics play a major role in this decision. Here, we will discuss the age aspect of this problem in terms of child eyewitness testimony and it's implications in the courtroom.
Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1), 97-146. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.pioproxy.carrollu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=aph&AN=74017401&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Richey, W. (2003). Can a Defendant Be Denied the Right To Confront Witnesses? Christian Science Monitor , 2.
Eyewitnesses are primarily used by the criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting crimes, particularly in circumstances where it is the only evidence available (Wells & Olson, 2003). Their testimony is highly regarded as it allows for police, prosecutors, judges and juries to establi...
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
Collection of evidence is usually a term designated to refer to the collection of physical evidence, government agencies such as police or environmental protection departments will have their own methods for the collection, storage and conservation of physical evidence and it is the responsibility of forensic personnel to adhere to these set guidelines. General principles which are shared amongst various agencies include, the creation of contemporaneous notes, recording the collection of evidence via photographing, videotaping and/or audiotapes, preserving the crime scene by sealing off the location and only allowing designated personnel to enter, avoiding contamination of the crime scene by investigators through the use of full body covering and also preventing cross-contamination with the scene and any suspects.
The amount of evidence can either help win or lose a case. Every crime scene has evidence available for officers to collect. It is important for them to know what the standard protocol is for collecting evidence and how to properly collect it without contamination.
As far back as 1832, James Marsh was the first to use forensics at trial to give evidence as a chemist in 1832. Since that time forensic science and evidence has come a long way in various ways and technology to help in determine if the suspect is guilt or not, through such things as DNA testing, blood, and fingerprints. The first forensic police crime lab was created in 1910. The contributions of Dr. Edmond Locard, a French scientist and criminologist, proposed that “everything leaves a trace”. This principle is still valid today as it was so many years ago. No matter how small, the specialized trained technicians and investigators can take these methods and go to a crime scene to get evidence. “Forensic science is the application of sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, computer science and engineering to matters of law.” (Office of Justice, 2017) These different sciences can help achieve and assist in solving a case. Forensic science has also the ability to prove that a crime was committed, it can find the elements of the crime, it can help place the suspect at the scene and whether the suspect had any contact with the victim. However, in the last several years the techniques and with the use of technology the evidence that forensic science uncovers can also exonerate an innocent individual who has been falsely accused of the
Evidence is a crucial component in a court case. Without evidence you can’t prove someone guilty or not guilty for a crime. “Evidence is any kind of proof offered to established the existence or nonexistence of a fact in dispute-for example, testimony, writings, other material objects, or demonstrations” (Neubauer, Fradella, 2014, pg. 345). There are different types of evidence, but they are either in one of the two categories. The first one is direct evidence which is first-hand evidence that does not require any inferences to be drawn in order to establish a proposition of fact (Neubauer, Fradella, 2014, pg.345).