Explain what the CPS will do in domestic violence cases, and describe their role in the case up to conviction or equital?

Child protective services (CPS) is a government agency located in many states across the United States that helps children stay away from harm and abuse. Child protective services and its agencies plays a big role in society. Children of all ages are assaulted and most of the times by a dearest loved one. Child abuse is defined as any type of neglect upon a child including mentally, physically, and sexually.

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

Thus, any out of court statements made by witnesses and/or victims to law enforcement must be excluded unless the defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine the unavailable witnesses (Byrom, 2005). The only non-testimonial statements that would be utilized in court, without direct testimony from the witness and/or complainant, were the taped 911 phone calls reporting the incident. If the victim testified, their previous statements would be allowed as evidence without limitation because the witness was subjected to cross-examination. However, if the victim refused to testify, any testimonials made to law enforcement were not allowed as evidence in the court proceedings.

Not all victims can stand up to their abusers. Past experiences or fear of escalating violence are powerful

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

To do that, the information from a treatment provider can be most helpful. So if the information from a provider doesn’t make its way to the court by way of direct testimony, in defense to the confidentiality issues, it may do so through a guardian or evaluators interview with the provider. But in most cases, one way or another information from a counselor and his or her records will find its way to the judge who needs it” (Psychotherapy, 2008).

Turning to the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see that the witness account played a great deal in the conviction of Morin. Mr. X falsely testified against Morin because he did not like Morin. The crown also used evidence from undercover officers where statements of Morin were recorded on a 60 minute tape recorder, which the officers believed to be 90 minutes. This made the case interesting because the crown used this instance for saying that Morin confessed to the crime after 60 minutes. This showed false accusation that was made both by the police officers and crown attorneys.

There are specific ethical considerations that need to be addressed when investigating Homicide and rape. A few of these ethical considerations are shared between the two such as the investigators mind state. This plays an important role in the preparations required for a successful prosecution. The investigator must be open-minded to any and all possibilities and be un-bias. The investigator must also know how to conduct all the elements of an investigation in the proper manner from a professional and legal aspect.

I saw my first bond reduction hearing at High Point’s courthouse. A middle-aged woman was in jail for assault on a female, which resulted in minor injuries. The defendant had four biological children and two adopted children. She reported that she had employment before the crime. The defendant was requesting a bond reduction. To help her case, the victim of the crime wanted to appear before the judge to speak on the defendant’s behalf. The judge might not have dropped the case, but the witnesses’ testimony could have persuaded him to reduce the defendant’s bond. The judge asked the witness for identification, but she did not have it. So, the judge dismissed the motion for a reduction in bond. The witness had some power to influence the judge.

The witness statements given are straightforward. The CPS will always prosecute where there is sufficient evidence and no factors preventing that evidence being used in court. It will be up to the court to decide the validity of that evidence in cross examination.

The impact of eyewitness testimony upon the members of a jury has been the subject of various research projects and has guided the policies formed by the federal government regarding its competent use in criminal matters (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000). Therefore, eyewitness studies are important to understand how

These deficiencies in pro-prosecution policies as presently implemented will need to be addressed if victim endorsement of such policies is to be achieved (MacLeod, 1995).

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness

In the second part of the following essay I will be nominating one source of evidence that is present at the scene of a scenario. I will be discussing in my own words how Police should collate, handle and analyse the piece of evidence in a Criminal Investigation. In doing this I will be using relevant crime scene powers, NSWPF operational guidance and making reference to the Horswell (2004) reading.