Different types of evidence needed to prove the guilt of the defendant in the Murder Case
Facts are recognized through evidence. A bloody fingerprint, for instance, could be used to show that a particular individual was present at the time of the victim’s murder. Demonstrative and real evidence are essential, but they can merely be used in court if admissible and pertinent. Although all evidence is identical, it is divided into kinds because various rules apply to different types of evidence. Furthermore, a judge or jury may only hear and consider evidence that has been adequately presented. Different forms of evidence are presented in different ways so that the judge or jury can consider them. When it comes to investigations, the term “evidence” refers to an extensive range of information sources that the court could possibly use to deny or prove an issue before the trier of fact. Evidence can come from various sources, ranging from witness observations to studying and examining actual objects (Vilkins & Grant, 2017). Within the timeline of events, it can similarly integrate the spatial connections between individuals, objects, and locations. To determine if a charge has been proven beyond doubt, the court can make deductions and conclude several sorts of evidence.
Eye witness Evidence
A competent, persuasive, sovereign eye witness with outstanding physical and mental capacities who have witnessed the criminal incidence and can relate the facts will typically content the court and provide evidence of high probative value. The court will examine various variables when determining the probative value of witness testimony.
Physical Evidence
Physical evidence will also be given a high probative value by the court. The court prefers physical evidence since it is something that the judge can see and study to interpret the facts in question for clear and convincing evidence. Physical evidence can include weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impressions, hair, fiber, or bodily fluids. Experts can examine and analyze these physical evidence displays and provide expert judgments to the court that relate the evidence to an individual, place, or criminal act (Vilkins & Grant, 2017). This allows the court to examine circumstantial evidence to consider the accused’s ties to the crime scene or the victim. If an accused’s fingerprints were found at a crime scene and a DNA match of a murder victim’s blood was discovered on that suspect’s clothing, forensic ties may be drawn.
Circumstantial Evidence
All other evidence, such as an accused’s fingerprint discovered at the crime scene, is considered indirect evidence, also known as circumstantial evidence. Indirect evidence does not prove the crime by itself. Still, it can help construct a body of evidence that can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by construing the circumstances and merging it with other evidence. Strong circumstantial evidence that only leads to one logical conclusion can sometimes be used by the court to convict an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt(Vilkins & Grant, 2017). The court must make assumptions and logical inferences to give meaning to the evidence. The spatial linkages between defendants, victims, timetables, and the crime event are demonstrated via circumstantial evidence. These spatial correlations can occasionally show that a suspect had the purpose, motive, chance, and means to commit the crime, all of which are essential aspects of criminal behavior.
Inculpatory evidence
Any evidence that will indirectly or directly link an accused individual to the crime under investigation is referred to as inculpatory evidence. Incriminating evidence might be found in the physical evidence, witness testimony, victim’s complaint, or circumstantial relationships investigated, examined, and recorded by the investigator during the investigation(Vilkins & Grant, 2017). It can range from direct evidence such as a witness who witnessed the defendant committing the crime to circumstantial evidence such as a fingerprint recovered in a spot that links the suspect to the crime scene or the victim.
What issues may arise with the witnesses given in the case selected?
Eyewitnesses can provide compelling court testimony, but their memory is prone to mistakes and prejudices rather than precisely recalling events. Like the rest of us, they forget essential facts and sometimes remember entire events that never happened. The recollection was incorrect since the erroneous information in the leading question. The misinformation effect is named after participants’ disinformation after the event (in this case, in the form of a false question) seems to corrupt defendants’ memories of what they experienced. Even trivial disparities can instigate misrepresentation effects in the phrasing of a question. When disinformation is met in social contexts, it can wreak havoc on memory even more quickly(Laney & Loftus, 2016). This is an issue, mainly when several witnesses to a crime. In these circumstances, witnesses are more inclined to converse with one another seconds after the crime, including while waiting for the police to show up. Even though witnesses see a similar event, they are likely to see or notice various things and remember them since they are different persons with different perspectives. As a result, they reaffirm the same memories of the incident and contaminate each other’s memories when they talk about the crime afterward.
In addition to recalling many facts of the acts they witness, eyewitnesses must often remember the faces and other distinctive characteristics of the perpetrators of the crimes they witness. Eyewitnesses are commonly questioned to provide police descriptions of the criminal and subsequently identify them from mug shot books or lineups. According to numerous studies, eyewitnesses make significant errors from time to time, but they are often understandable and even predictable. Some aspects have been proven to upsurge the likelihood of eyewitness identification mistakes(Laney & Loftus, 2016). Poor vision or viewing conditions during the crime, predominantly stressful witnessing experiences, inadequate time to view the offender or perpetrators, the short time between seeing and identifying, and being asked to identify an offender of a race other than one’s own are just a few examples.
Memory is similarly prone to an extensive range of other errors and prejudices. Individuals can forget about happenings in their lives and the individuals they used to know. They can mix up statistics over space and time. They can even remember whole complicated events that never took place. Significantly, once made, these errors can be challenging to correct. Memory is not any less “memorable” because it is incorrect. Minor memory errors are common, and you’ve undoubtedly made many of them. You drop your keys without looking, and when you go back to look for them, you cannot locate them. Memory prejudices of other types are more erudite and stay longer(Laney & Loftus, 2016). It turns out, for instance, that the prospects and opinions about how the world works can have a significant impact on people’s memory. Our memory systems utilize recurrent patterns by emerging and using schemata, or memory templates because several areas of our daily lives are full of repetitions. Eyewitness testimony is intense and convincing to jurors, even if it is not trustworthy. Mistakes in identification occur, resulting in people being falsely prosecuted and convicted. Leading queries, erroneous interpretations of events, conversations with co-witnesses, and unrealistic expectations of what should have happened can all impair eyewitness remember. Individuals can even remember details of events that never occurred.
Hearsay may be an issue in prosecuting the murder case
The hearsay rule is one of the most complicated and contentious standards of evidence. It is frequently used in both criminal and civil situations. The core notion is that a statement made to a witness outside of court cannot be used to demonstrate its truth. This is because the opposing party does not have the opportunity to question the person who remarked and determine their integrity(Little & Rispoli, 2018). As a result, the hearsay rule is intended to discourage juries from convicting defendants based on rumors and other secondhand evidence. Because eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, it may be a concern in a murder case. He said/She said testimony usually refers to a circumstance in which one person’s testimony, or statement, is the only source of proof. Suppose the judge believes a witness beyond a possible suspicion. In that case, the jury may return a guilty verdict, and the defendant could be found guilty based solely on the testimony of one individual. There is no requirement for physical evidence. The state does not require a recording, injuries, fingerprints, or other physical evidence. As opposed to He, physical evidence said. She said evidence could make a court more inclined to convict.
It cannot be utilized to determine the identification of a murder victim. Several court decisions label evidence as hearsay, despite the objection that the witness does not have firsthand knowledge. As hearsay, the defendant’s testimony that a third person confessed to the crime is inadmissible. Aside from the trial judge’s essential screening function, which ensures that the probative value of a piece of physical evidence or a line of inquiry outweighs any predisposition to the defendant, there are several specific rules of evidence designed to improve the reliability of trial findings(Little & Rispoli, 2018). The law prohibiting hearsay testimony is one of the essential rules in the Anglo-American system of civil and criminal courts. There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. These exclusions allow hearsay to be admitted when the situation makes it sufficiently reliable. The prohibition on the use of hearsay evidence is not absolute. Several exclusions would enable it, and these exceptions, like evidence rules in general, differ by jurisdiction. One prominent exception is the rule that allows a witness’s earlier testimony to be admitted if unavailable(Little & Rispoli, 2018). Suppose a witness testified at defendant Doe’s first trial but died before the second trial due to a hung jury. In that case, the witness’s testimony could be used at the second trial under the hearsay exemption if the witness perished before the second trial. Hearsay evidence may be a real problem for defendants, and an intelligent defense lawyer will battle to prevent hearsay evidence from being used against their client.
The privilege that may be raised in the murder case
Attorney-client privilege and the privilege against self-incrimination are the two most common types of legal privilege. In the United States and other common law countries, certain benefits are accessible. New statements are those made within a specific relationship of trust that the law protects against disclosure, except for the privilege against self-incrimination. The principle of the privilege against self-incrimination, which is usually referred to as single protection, certainly comes from several different standard law protections for plaintiffs and witnesses concerning the protection of citizens against the misuse of power by those investigating and prosecuting ( Alldridge & Swart, 2019). The privilege protects the right to remain silent during an investigation against self-incrimination. A perpetrator can refuse to speak to the police, but they cannot refuse to appear in front of the grand jury.
The perpetrator can “take the Fifth” and refuse to answer questions he trusts would implicate him. The privilege applies to any delinquency, national or federal; therefore, a perpetrator can take the Fifth when the state is investigating him for a federal felony, and he is afraid of being implicated. Witnesses who are not defendants or potential defendants, on the other hand, cannot refuse to testify and may be held in contempt of court if they do. In rare cases, the prosecution can circumvent the defendant’s protection against self-incrimination by promising amnesty for the offenses he might mention while testifying ( Alldridge & Swart, 2019). The witness can no longer refuse to testify by asserting the privilege against self-incrimination once they have immunized against prosecution privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to testimony. The defendants can take hair, blood, and other bodily fluids. They may be required to supply writing samples and information such as safe combination codes or bank account locations in specific circumstances. These are governed by the rules governing searches and seizures rather than the laws controlling self-incrimination.
The attorney-client privilege is defined as “the right to refuse to divulge and prohibit any other individual from revealing confidential communications made to assist the rendering of professional legal services to the client by a lawyer. The attorney-client privilege protects the privacy of conversations between lawyers and their clients. Attorneys are forbidden from disclosing their clients’ secrets, and they cannot be compelled to do so. The privilege is envisioned to inspire clients to openly disclose information with their lawyers to provide sound representation (Franck,2019). Lawyers are not allowed to reveal oral or written conversations with clients that the client reasonably expects to remain confidential. Without the client’s agreement, a lawyer who has received a client’s confidence and trust cannot expose them to anybody outside the legal team. In that respect, the privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer, and the client, not the lawyer, can lose (or waive) it. The attorney-client privilege is a rule of evidence in the strictest sense. It prohibits lawyers from speaking about their clients’ comments or being forced to do so. In addition to the privilege, lawyers owe their clients a duty of confidentiality.
Motion to suppress regarding evidence seized in the Murder Case
A motion to suppress is a move that seeks to have evidence excluded from a trial. A motion to suppress is a request made by a criminal perpetrator before a criminal trial in the United States, requesting the court to remove specific evidence from the trial. The suggested reason for the exclusion must be found in the United States Constitution, a state constitution, or a statute that precisely allows for the exclusion of such information. A move in limine is a motion filed in advance of a trial to omit evidence based on rules of evidence. Motions to suppress are governed by Rule 41(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in federal courts (Liu, S., & Nir, 2021). The “exclusionary rule,” based on the Fourth Amendment, prevents persons from being subjected to unlawful searches and seizures by excluding evidence gathered in violation of their constitutional rights from the trial.
The exclusionary rule forbids the regime from using most illegally obtained evidence. It frequently comes into play when evidence is gathered in violation of an accused’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from irrational searches and seizures. For example, if police wrongfully searched a suspect’s home to recuperate a murder weapon, it cannot be introduced at trial. For a piece of evidence to be allowable at trial, police must acquire a valid search warrant and observe legal procedures. Police violations of the Fifth or Sixth Amendments may also trigger the regulation(Liu, S., & Nir, 2021). Furthermore, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, typically admissible evidence, confessions, or even testimony, may be dismissed from the trial if obtained through an unlawful search or another constitutional breach. For instance, a suspect is apprehended and tells authorities where the pistol used in the crime can be found. However, the gun might be declared inadmissible in court if he was not read his Miranda Rights or if officers ignored his pleas to talk to his counsel. Failure to give Miranda warnings is another issue. When individuals are taken into custody by the police, they must be informed of their Miranda rights(Liu, S., & Nir, 2021). This includes advising an individual of their right to remain silent, the possibility of having anything they say used against them, and their right to an attorney. Any statements or confessions made and any other evidence gathered by the police due to this failure may be suppressed. To win a motion to suppress, the attorney must present enough facts and apply particular laws to those facts to persuade the judge that the evidence is unlawful. Case law, state or federal rules, and, in many cases, the United States Constitution are submitted in these moves. These motions must be well-written and backed up by legal analysis and logic.
Special issues that should be addressed in preparing the case for trial
The key to a successful trial practice is preparation. Contrary to popular belief, no part of a trial is conducted on the spur of the moment. Everything you do and say in the courtroom is planned, from your opening statement to cross-examination to objections to your emotional closing argument assaulting the credibility of an adverse witness. Any lawyer who tells you otherwise only defends their indifference (Moulinou, 2019). Murder is a unique crime. No other corruption deprives the victim of everything he owns, including his life, for the rest of his life. As a result, a murder trial is distinct in that the crime has upped the stakes for the victim, the victim’s survivors, and the offender. How to Try a Murder Case starts with the initial preparations, even before the crime is committed, and continues through the investigation, searches, arrests, and questioning.
The special issues that should be addressed in preparing a murder case for trial include paying close attention to the details, laying a firm foundation, Making a strategy for dealing with evidential challenges, Identifying potential trial briefing possibilities, and developing the trial theme. The construction of a case theory is the cornerstone of preparation. A case theory interprets the facts and legislation in the most practical way feasible(Moulinou, 2019). Given the evidence and common sense, what do you believe happened, what is the best legal ground for you, what aspects of the case are substantial, and which are weak. What is the impact of a favorable verdict for the client on the cause of justice? A lawyer won’t plan any other aspect of the case unless they have developed a theory. They will have to decide who to call as witnesses, what questions to ask, whether or not to present specific exhibits, and what arguments to make.
References
Alldridge, P., & Swart, B. (2019). The privilege against self-incrimination in proactive policing. In Invading the Private (pp. 253-272). Routledge.
Franck, S. D. (2019). International Arbitration and Attorney-Client Privilege: A Conflict of Laws Approach. Ariz. St. LJ, 51, 935.
Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2016). Eyewitness testimony and memory biases. Noba textbook series: Psychology.
Liu, S., & Nir, E. (2021). Mission Impossible? Challenging Police Credibility in Suppression Motions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 08874034211057612.
Little, R. R., & Rispoli, S. L. (2018). The Hearsay Paradox: Declarant-Witnesses’ Own out-of-Court Statements. Baylor L. Rev., 70, 843.
Maguire, M. (2012). Criminal investigation and crime control. In Handbook of policing (pp. 458-492). Willan.
Moulinou, I. (2019). Explicit and implicit discursive strategies and moral order in a trial process. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 105-132.
Vilkins, S., & Grant, W. J. (2017). Types of evidence cited in Australian Government publications. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1681-1695.
write