Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
importance of evidence in criminal justice process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: importance of evidence in criminal justice process
In the grand scheme of trial, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence can take several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. Regardless of what type evidence is presented must be relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
In this paper, an examination of the legal standard of relevance evidence will be discussed. Furthermore, the rules of inclusion and exclusion of evidence based on the wording of the rules will be scrutinized. In the final section, examples of evidence will be presented that could be both relevant and irrelevant for certain crime.
As mentioned earlier relevance evidence refers to any material fact or evidence that make the existence of a issue more probable than it would without facts. When evidence has been offered and a determination has been made to include it due to passing constitutional test and did not violated collection procedures, the supporter of the evidence will have to demonstrate the materiality, competency, and relevancy of same(Britz, 2008, p.273). The relevancy of an item evaluates the materiality of the item and its probative value.
The judge will conduct an evaluation evidence competency however, the jury can decide doing deliberation that a specific item or witness lacks credibility, in so doing refusing to consider it. In order to have the full understanding of evidence one need to understand the definition of relevance according to Federal Rules of Evidence. There are several reason evidence may be found to be lega...
... middle of paper ...
...the assassin in the drug case. This would be considered irrelevance.
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
Works Cited
Britz, M.T. (2008). Criminal Evidence. Boston. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Federal Rules of Evidence (2011) Retrieved December 18, 2011, from http://www.law.cornell.edu
Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 560 (1967)
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard.
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
Plain error can help a substantive right angle in the defense for the introduction of improper presentation. In the battle of inadmissible evidence a jury trial will be deemed necessary for the case. The jury case will ultimately provide the possibility of any evidence to be thrown out and therefore should take notice to plain error. The main predominance in this case suggest that even though evidence was found to be exclusively vital to the case it can also be legally fought for the evidence to be inadmissible. For example, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 236 “police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of
Peterson, J. L., Hickman, M. J., Strom, K. J., & Johnson, D. J. (2013). Effect of forensic evidence on criminal justice case processing. Journal of Forensic Sciences, S78-S90.
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.
proven guilty and to be proved guilty it must be done beyond reasonable doubt or
9) Legal Considerations at the Crime Scene are of utmost importance in ensuring that the evidence is admissible. Discuss this in the context of Mincey v. Arizona case and the Michigan v. Tyler
Known standards must be recognized and followed so that possession is obtained legally, evidence is marked appropriately samples are properly preserved, and the acquisition process is reported accurately. A complete chain of custody must be documented. Missing evidence or gaps in the chain of custody can produce doubt regarding the validity of the evidence. Doubt can lead to a ruling that evidence not be considered in a court of law because it lacks value in the prosecution. A ruling of not guilty, a mistrial or a complete dismissal of the case could ensue based on whether or not key evidence was dismissed from consideration, or how physical evidence is handled. In the case “Incredible Evidence” illustrated in our textbook on pages 68 and 69, a jury issued a verdict of not guilty in the high profile case involving O.J. Simpson, based on how the evidence was handled during the
The purpose of this paper is to review how documentary evidence and electronic evidence, which is treated as a form of documentary evidence, is used in criminal proceedings in Australia1 with the view to make some suggestions for possible adoption as recommendations to the Uniform Act for effective application in criminal trials. The aim is to maintain an efficient and effective justice system in which a clear and comprehensive laws of evidence play a fundamental role
In civil court, “preponderance of the evidence” and “clear and convincing evidence” are required standards of proof. “Preponderance of the evidence” is established when the evidence has shown that guilt has been more than 50% proven (Hails, 2014, p. 574). “Clear and convincing” standard requires proof greater than the “preponderance of the evidence” but not as great as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Reasonable doubt is establish through evidence that disqualifies every reasonable opposing argument, thus establishing guilt. In criminal cases, guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” (Hails, 2014, p. 546). While the first two standards of proof are more commonly associated with civil trials, they are also read requirements in criminal courts during evidentiary rulings.
Evidence is the use of information to decide whether the accused did or did not in fact commit the crime. It can be from a weapon to even and DNA found once investigation starts. Even though evidence can be viewed to be a major factor in a case, there are rules behind what type of evidence and what can and cannot be admissible to court. As informed by Criminal Evidence, “evidence is any information about the facts of the case, including tangible items, testimony, documents…which, when presented to the jury at trial, tends to prove or disprove these facts.
Eyewitness testimony plays a very large role in the American court system. It has been proven that a courts decision regarding the guilt of an accused person often depends on an eyewitness’ testimony and identification (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2010). To a jury eyewitness testimony is one of the most convincing forms of evidence is (Goldstein, 2008). When an eyewitness testifies and identifies a person as the criminal, his testification is given a lot of weight, and it is likely that the person identified will be convicted. This is true even when there is other evidence indicating that the accused is not guilty (Aronson et al, 2010). Furthermore, the more confident an eyewitness appears when testifying and identifying a criminal, the greater the likelihood of the jurors believing him (Aronson et al, 2010; Goldstein, 2008).