UnitVI Case Study BCJ 3801 Evidence: Ethical Dilemmas
Kindof evidence used
Detectivelens direct evidence was used. As per the detectives, directevidence was used because the accused were found right at the sceneof the incident. They were at the scene of the festival where thewares had been stolen, and they at the dumpster where the goods wareswere found. To add on this, they were seen by the sanitation workerswho were at the dumpster at that particular time.
Judgelens circumstantial evidence was used. Given that the accused wereat the scene where the wares were found is not enough. Likewise, thefact that the sanitation workers had seen the accused at the place ofwork gives loopholes and cannot be used as evidence because thedescription of the workers concerning the accused persons differsfrom one worker to another and, therefore, there should beconnections to their evidence to find the truth.
Detectivelens documentary evidence was not used to have the suspects held incustody. All the evidence used was due to the explanations by theworkers and what they found at the ground during the time theyarrested the accused persons.
Judgelens there’s no documentary evidence used during the arresting ofthe suspects. There was no any print material, photo or film taken toshow what happened at the community festival venue. The mode ofcommunication the suspects are using to communicate to their familymembers amounts to documentary evidence as copies of such letters canbe obtained respective family members or the mail department at thejail.
Primaryand secondary evidence
Detectivelens no documentary evidence was used. Other sources of collectingthe evidence were readily available as compared to the documentaryevidence as no cameras were in the area of the scene.
Judgelens there’s no documentary evidence that was used in these casebecause the news broadcast would have been secondary evidence, but itwas never used to help the court to find the truth nor was it used bythe detectives to conduct their investigations. The letters writtenby the suspects to their families can be primary documentary evidenceif only they are used by the court for any purpose.
Detectivelens the collection of evidence was done in a procedural way toensure that every part of the evidence that was required to hold theculprits liable was collected. To start with, the first officers toalive at the scene of the incident identified, secured and protectedthe scene so that the evidence collection procedures were not to bedisrupted in any way. The tools that were of use to process theevidence were made available. For instance, the officer in chargeconsulted the services of the experts who were responsible forcollecting and identifying the fingerprints from the stolen wares andthe suspects. Efforts were also made to do videotaping andphotographing of the crime scene because this amounted to evidencethat was to be used by the judge when delivering the judgment at thecourt of law. All the evidence that needed laboratory identificationwas submitted to the laboratory. Then the entire evidence inventoryand the chain of custody was analyzed, compiled, and stored by theofficers responsible and presented before the judge on the judgmentday.
Judgelens ensured that all the procedures of collecting the informationwere lawfully done.
Detectivelens the admissible evidence that was collected at the scene of theincident was presented before the judge on the judgment day. Theymade all the necessary efforts to protect and process the scene wherethe incident occurred. They properly collected and recorded all theinformation and that was key to providing the evidence required atthe court.
Judgelens ensured that all the evidence produced at court were collectedat the scene of the incident, they were admissible, and they wereenough to make the judgment for or against any side. The judge alsomade sure that the judgment had no reasonable doubts.
Admissibilityof the evidence
Detectivelens all the evidence collected was admissible in the court of law.They were collected at the scene of the incident, and they believedthat all of their findings were useful to identifying the realculprits who were involved in the case.
Judgelens the evidence collected is only admissible if it does notcontravene the rights of the suspects, was done according to thelawful procedure, and its material to the case at hand. They had touse the law to find kinds of evidence that can be admissible andthose that could not be admissible.
Thejudge lens was the most difficult to analyze because all thestatements had to be supported by the law and there must bereasonable evidence to hold the culprits liable or set them free.Some of the exclusionary rules could not be applied as evidencegathered in the open field at the dumpster and from the abandonedproperty in this case, the wares were not enough to have theculprits held liable.
Garland,N.M. (2015). CriminalEvidence.New Yolk. McGraw-Hill Education.