Mental Processes In Identifying Strangers

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder, we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

Mapp complained that her Fourth Amendment rights were being violated because she was convicted based on evidence procured from an illegal warrantless search of her home. When the Ohio Supreme Court rejected her case, she brought it forth to the United States’ Supreme Court. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded Dollree Mapp’s conviction and extended the exclusionary rule to all state criminal prosecutions. “The exclusionary rule dictates that any evidence obtained by police or other government agents through an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is inadmissible in court during a criminal trial” (5). Before Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was created due to Weeks v. United States, another Supreme Court case in 1914, when it was only obligatory for the federal courts to implement this rule; the state courts were not mandated to obey the exclusionary

From March 29, 1961, to July 19, 1961, the landmark Supreme Court case, Mapp vs Ohio was heard. The appellant was suspected assailant to a bombing, Dollree Mapp, and the Respondent, the State of Ohio. This case was about an unwarranted search on the appellant’s property and during that search, the police found some disturbing and obscene material. Dollree Mapp appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. The issue at hand was whether the unlawfully confiscated materials were protected by the First Amendment and if evidence obtained in the search which violates the Fourth Amendment should be admitted in court as evidence. The verdict of Mapp vs Ohio was six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp. After this, the exclusionary rule was put in place, the rules establish that all evidence obtained must be legally

This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;

Even though the search warrant was invalid at the time of the search and seizures officers obtained evidence in “good faith” thinking they were acting on a valid search warrant. The evidence obtained under this exception is admissible. An independent source doctrine is evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure may later on be admissible after a valid seizure is obtained, the same evidence would be considered admissible due to this exception. The inevitable source doctrine states that evidence would have been discovered without the unlawful search and seizure, hence “inevitable”. Attenuation doctrine states when evidence is challenged and an unlawful search and seizure is too isolated and weakened it can be admissible in court. Evidence admissible for impeachment states the court can use tainted evidence or illegally obtained evidence to impeach and prevent perjury in court but not to show guilt in a trial. Qualified immunity is a rule more for defendants who believe their Miranda rights have been violated due to an unreasonable search conducted by law enforcement. The rule protects government officials against lawsuits. Finally the fruit of the poisonous tree states any evidence gathered from an illegal search may not be admissible in court and must be excluded from trial.

The exclusionary rule provides extra protections for defendants; however, certain circumstances exist allowing the introduction of gathered evidence that violates the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. These exceptions include good faith errors, independent sources, inevitable discovery, and the purged taint exception. The good faith exception allows the introduction of evidence collected by law enforcement that on review violates the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. A defective search warrant may taint the collected evidence; however, law enforcement officers acting under good faith a search warrant is valid may present the tainted evidence at trial because the initial error lies with the judge approving the probable cause for the warrant (Del Carmen, 2010). The independent source exception allows the introduction of evidence obtained via the direct result of an illegal search or seizure if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the seizure of the evidence dissipates the taint of illegality. If the police possess an independent source used to obtain entry on a search and discover contraband based on the source in an illegal manner, then the seizure of the evidence is admissible regardless of the illegal entry or search (Del Carmen, 2010). The inevitable discovery doctrine allows the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s guilt that is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. The doctrine states

The proposition that the exclusionary rule should be abolished is preposterous. There are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. Unfortunately, there are many who believe, for a number of reasons, that the exclusionary rule does more harm than good, and that American society suffers needlessly for the sake of protecting the rights of those who violate its laws. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police

Good Faith is the last exception. In this case, the magistrate issues a seizure warrant for acquiring evidence. However, this may not be in sync with the role of the exclusionary rule in deterring the police from any misconduct and also the evidence suppression may not occur. The limitation of this exception is that, if the defense can convince the judge that the officer was reckless in seizing the evidence, then the good faith will be nullified.

The author Hall (2015) defines the exclusionary rules as an incident that does not require a warrant for a search to be conducted and evidence seized to be admissible in court under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court first cited the exclusionary rule in the legal case Weeks v The United States and reinforced this rule again in the legal case Map v Ohio in an article by the author FINDLAW (2017). In my opinion, the exclusionary rule is required under the Fourth Amendment to prevent law enforcement officers from acting unethically and within their scope of practice.

2. The rights of the accused is based upon the “Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment that creates the Due Process of Law” (Ginsberg et al. 133). These laws protect accused criminals by “engaging limitations on the governments against the liberty and freedom of the accused”. However under the “search and seize it prohibits evidence from being submitted in court that was seized during an illegal search” (Ginsberg et al. 134). The exclusionary was applied during the case of Mapp v. Ohio. The technicalities of this rule has allowed

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

Is our justice system fair? Is our justice system truly set out to do what it was meant to do? Or are there social factors and memory errors that come into play that can change a conviction outcome. In today’s court rooms we have, Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, judges, juries, evidence, forensics experts, witness testimonies, and of course the human memory. What better type of evidence than the human memory, right? Unfortunately, human memory is subject to the power of suggestion and unable to truly recall an event when told to recall. In other words, the story may not be the same as the one that actually happened the day of that event because many variables come into play like cross examinations and the way a question can be asked can alter the answer or how the event was perceived. The main focus of this paper is to see how the human brain is not able to effectively recall events which could possibly convict an innocent person of wrong doing. Also how lawyers use the misinformation effect to their advantage. In order to understand how something as simple as a question can decide a person’s faith we must first answer some questions. First, How does memory actually work and how is memory retrieved when your need to answer a question or being cross examined? Second, how does the misinformation effect play a role when a witness needs to testify against the defense or vice versa? Third, how can structuring a word or sentence effect the outcome of a conviction?

The need for understanding the phenomenon of repressed memories is also very important from a legal standpoint. In recent years there has been numerous cases of people suing their parents or other authority figures for abuse that has been recalled many years after the abuse was said to have occurred. The rulings in these cases have often been controversial considering there is often not enough concrete or collaborative evidence to prove the accused to be guilty or innocent. The judge and jury are often forced to make a ruling that relies heavily on the testimonial of the accuser. This is very contentious considering there is not an accurate and reliable test to determine the validity of the accuser.

Cochran et al (2016) provide a case study analysis of the temporal nature of memory in suspect lineups and crimes being investigated by law enforcement. The study involves a longitudinal evaluation of participants that are given evidence of a crime (through slideshows) that allows them to ascertain the criminal act or to choose a suspect in a lineup. At a later time, the participants are given altered information on the crime, which revealed a greatly distorted memory of the crimes that the participants did not remember. This misinformation was an attempt to trick the participants into affirming