Identification Of Evidence In Criminal Law

Nearly anyone you ask would be familiar with the television show CSI. The crime lab is colorful and high-tech with all of the fun toys and machines that analysts use to test the ever abundant amount of forensic evidence from every crime scene. It makes for an exciting drama that you cannot help but get immersed in—it also gives us a false illusion, however, creating what has been dubbed as the “CSI effect” (Baskin, 2011). This effect describes the idea that crime shows such as CSI generate unreal expectations, making viewers believe that forensic evidence should be existent in all criminal trials, therefore affecting their overall perspective on a case (Baskin, 2011). But in reality, forensic labs are not that glamorous. In fact, the

From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.

While circumstantial evidence may be used to prove knowledge, the State did not meet its burden of proof. When determining if a person had knowledge, a court will look at the following factors: “incriminating statements made by the defendant, incriminating actions of the defendant upon the police’s discovery of drugs among or near the defendant’s personal belongings, the defendant’s fingerprints on the packages containing the drugs, and any other circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs.” These factors were not present in Fischer and no other factors the majority used linked Fischer to the drug, and thus established “knowingly” element beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to Young and Ortmeier (2011), the forensic value of firearm and ballistics evidence is associated with the ability to link the firearm to the crime and the shooter. Markings and striations of the firearm on expended cartridge casings and projectile discovered at a crime are collected and compared to known bullets in a database of known firearm types and test-fired bullets. By checking these national databases, the firearm can be linked to several crimes or not connected to any crimes whatsoever. However, other evidence such as DNA and fingerprints can be linked to other crimes and therefore can link the person to the crime as well (Ortmeier, 2011).

3. The role of the prosecutor is to decide which evidence should be presented and which is the best way to present it. Evidence is chosen based on what is best fitted to present the case and helps to build towards a guilty verdict against the offender. Judges give the final stamp of approval on all evidence presented in a case. They are given power to either admit or omit evidence based on prosecutorial or defense objects which will require interpretation of the law. The jury’s duty is to review and interpret the evidence in order to find the truth within it. During criminal trials they are meant to decide if the evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am Detective Sergeant Marcus C. Albright assigned to the Criminal Investigative Unit with the Maury County Sheriff’s Department and was so on the 29th day of December, 2017. I was contacted earlier this week by Sara E. Myers who is with the U. S. Attorney’s Office from the Middle District of Tennessee about attending a meeting with Mary Catherine Elizabeth Thomas at her attorney’s office. Tentatively I was informed the meeting with her attorney Jason Whatley was to explore possible information the U. S. Attorney’s Office had gotten regarding a relative of Tad Cummins communicating with Mary Catherine sometime over the last couple of weeks.

The collection of evidence, whether it be direct, circumstantial, physical, or testimonial, is very important to a case. Why? Because that evidence is what the prosecution hopes will end with a conviction. However, sometimes things happen and evidence gets contaminated. Now, the biggest thing to determine is whether the contamination happened on accident or if someone tampered with it on purpose.

In chapter one of this text, it discusses the development and history of the law of criminal evidence. The majority of the rules in evidence were created in the courts of England. Today, persons charged with criminal offenses are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Defendants today can admit or be in denial from a charge, and if the charge is in fact denied, then the government must come forward with substantial, reliable, and valid information showing this person is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the rules and regulations now were not always present. They progressed maturely over the course of history, many were embedded into what is known as common law, and a lot them were created as a piece of the Constitution on the

The foundation needed for the towel to be admitted as forensic evidence would need to consist of sufficiently supportive information presented to a judge to convince him or her that the proposed witness or item information has the potential to be the truth and hence the jury could reasonably determine that is is or is not true. Admissible evidence must be relevant. Meaning the evidence must prove or disprove an important fact in the criminal case. If the evidence doesn't relate to a particular fact, it is considered "irrelevant" and is therefore inadmissible. It must also be reliable. Meaning it must have some credibility of a source that is being used as evidence.

The Hypothesis that we are showing is that John Smith came to a complete stop on 6900 South Desert BLVD, El Paso TX and coasted into the intersection. The prosecution is stating that John Smith accelerated through the intersection at a red light. Using the formulas approved by the Court I was able to prove that my hypothesis is more likely than the prosecutions.

Crime scenes tell a story. Whether it is a long story with a lot of evidence, or if it’s a short story with a lot of information missing can be determined on how you use what you see. In traditional crime scenes investigators rely heavily on fingerprints and DNA found at the crime scene. Each can be useful but also has their faults. When it comes to fingerprints, you may not get a full print, it could only be a partial or even an individual who is not in the system. Most fingerprints found at crime scenes are only smears making them worthless. DNA samples can be extremely beneficial, but only if you get lucky. I say this because it is so much that could go wrong while trying to obtain information from a DNA sample. The body could have already

In my opinion, I think when the court is allow evidence of prior criminal history, then it should be setting a period and not allowing history that is from too long ago. Defendant might already served or respond for what they had done in the past. The criminal history record might be use it for a reference but shouldn’t be use it as a fact. When bringing out the criminal history on the case, it might not be always fair to the defendant. So, I think it really depend on case

Furthermore, the components leading up to the crime scene and recovering evidence are vital in prompting a successful case. In the following case: The Deadly Picnic, the methods previously discussed in this paper will be used to dissect and analyze a crime scene. The paper will further discuss possible suspects and eventually the individual responsible for the murder of Mr. Brooks.

In chapter one, we discuss the history of the rules of evidence and how the rules of evidence became applicable to our modern society. The use of evidence was deeply established during the creation of the American colonies. In comparison to many developed countries at the time, the common law was embraced to implement a set of guidelines to punish any wrongful acts and/or to ultimately deter criminal behavior in society. Ideally, the utilization of evidence was used and is still used to corroborate whether an individual is guilty or innocent in the court of law.

Evidence is the key element in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes against society in a criminal court of law. Evidence can come in the form of weapons, documents, pictures, tape recordings and DNA. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, evidence is the documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law (476). It is shown in court as an item of proof, to impeach or rehabilitate a witness, and to determine a sentence. This paper will examine two murder cases, O.J. Simpson and Daniel Taylor.