Criminal Justice The Peanuts Gang - Essay Example

Criminal Justice: “The Peanuts Gang” ISSUE Charlie Brown’s motion to suppress the gun’s admissibility into evidence was overruled by the court. The issue is whether or not the court was justified in allowing for the gun’s admissibility as evidence. RULE OF LAW The Fourth Amendment of the United States states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Implicit in the text of Fourth Amendment is that as a general rule, people may not be searched, nor may their houses and properties be searched or seized, unless a warrant would have been issued for the purpose, and that the warrant must be supported by probable cause, detailed description of the place to be searched and things or persons to be seized. The absence of a warrant is therefore guarantee, as a general rule, against search and seizure or arrest. An exception to the general rule, however, is that in the absence of a warrant, it is still legally possible to effect a search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest. A search, without a search warrant, may be conducted on persons lawfully arrested while committing a crime, as well as the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things that are connected with the crime as its fruits or as means by which the crime was committed, or as means by which to effect an escape from custody.1 One of the established exceptions to the requirements of warrant and probable cause in a search is that such search was conducted with the consent of the accused. However, such consent must not be coerced by implied threat or covert force, either by explicit or implicit means.2 ANALYSIS The facts of the case state that Office Peppermint Patty had a warrant to search Charlie Brown’s home at 2814 Mission Street.She went to execute the warrant on a Saturday afternoon. However, as she arrived at that destination she saw Charlie Brown enter the office building next door. The sign on the office door indicated that the office is open Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The office was close but unlocked, the officer knocked and announced herself but there was no response. She entered, saw Charlie Brown in the reception area sitting on the couch and reading a comic book. The officer arrested him, searched the office, and subsequently found a 0.357 caliber handgun which eventually was identified as the murder weapon in a previously unsolved murder. The motion on inadmissibility of the gun as evidence will turn on the manner in which it was procured, which the defense will contend was contrary to the law on search and seizures. The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant based on probable cause and issued by a magistrate be procured before a search or arrest is made.3 While Officer Peppermint Patty had a search warrant, it was specified for the residence of Charlie Brown, 2814 Mission Street, not for 2812 Mission Street, the office where the search was eventually made. The Officer therefore made a warrantless search. The prosecution is likely to make the contention that the search, though warrantless, was still lawful because it was made on occasion of a lawful arrest. To this the defense may argue that the arrest was not lawful, because it was warrantless, and a warrantless arrest can only be made if the accused were in the act of committing a crime, or if the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that the accused had just committed a crime. In this case, there is an absence of probable cause since at the time he was arrested Charlie Brown was sitting on the couch reading a comic book. The actions of Charlie Brown could not be categorized as being in the act of committing a crime, nor could they have given Officer Patty any reason to believe that a crime had just been committed. The reason given by the officer for the arrest is that she had asked Charlie Brown why he did not answer her knock, and he replied “This is a private office,” a response to which she was “unhappy”. The response was not unreasonable, nor is it cause to arrest Charlie Brown because it did not constitute a felony. The prosecution may further argue that the gun was in plain view, situated on top the reception desk, and that the office was a public place wherein Charlie Brown may not expect protection of privacy. The defense may argue that while the gun may have been situated atop the receptionist desk, its discovery was not inadvertent. Officer Patty admitted looking intentionally around the office after she arrested Charlie Brown, and was therefore intended as a search pursuant to an arrest. To this, the prosecution may contend that in Horton v California,4 the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-part test that must be complied with for evidence in plain view to be found admissible: First, the officer should be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed. The officer complied with this test by knocking on the door and, finding it unlocked, entered after announcing her presence. Second, the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, which she had because it was plainly in view on the receptionist’s desk, not concealed or locked away. Third the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent,” which in this case is apparent because the object is a weapon and thus is likely contraband.The fact that the discovery was not inadvertent is of no consequence because the Horton case eliminated such requisite in complying with the plain view doctrine. Finally, prosecution may contend that the discovery and seizure of the gun could be justified on the doctrine of open fields, the location being an office that welcomed outsiders in, which would have precluded the right to privacy and thus did not require the consent of the accused. Defense will argue that Officer Patty made the seizure on a Saturday afternoon when the office was closed and therefore not a public place. While her entry was not unannounced, her search and seizure was not conducted with the consent of the accused; nor was his failure to answer the knock implicit consent, as was his response that the office was private, indicating he expected that his privacy was secure. CONCLUSION The search and seizure were without a warrant, and the circumstances could not justify a warrantless arrest of Charlie Brown. However, the discovery and seizure of the gun may be justified separately from the arrest, under the three-pronged Horton test pursuant to the doctrine of plain view, and may therefore be admitted into evidence for having been lawfully obtained. Criminal Justice: “The Peanuts Gang” 1. If Charlie Brown argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, how should the Appellate Court rule? ISSUE The issue at bar is whether or not Charlie Brown is justified in claiming that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, such that his rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment had been prejudiced as a result. RULE The question of the rights of the accused to trial is addressed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The Sixth Amendment, in assuring the assistance of counsel, must necessarily have meant competent assistance, or “effective” assistance.This is pursuant to U.S. v Cronic,5 where it is stated that not only is counsel to be provided the accused, but “assistance” “to confront both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor,”6 meaning effective assistance.7 In order for the assertion to hold that counsel rendered ineffective assistance and thus prejudiced the accused, it is necessary to show that(1)counsel's performance during the trial fell below a standard of reasonable effectiveness, and (2) that there is a "reasonable probability" that without such unprofessional errors committed by counsel, the trial would have resulted in a different decision.8 In proving the incompetence of counsel, the court will resort to determining the admissibility of the expert testimony provided by the prosecution, to judge on whether the incompetence of counsel redounded to admission of scientific evidence provided, and if such evidence plays a material role in the determination of the decision. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,Rule 703 provides that expert opinions based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay are to be admitted only if the facts or data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject." Additionally, Rule 403 permits the exclusion of relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." ANALYSIS The requisites specified by U.S. v Cronic are to prove that (1) counsel failed to achieve a standard of effectiveness normally expected, and (2) that as a result of such ineffectiveness, the decision had been materially affected to the prejudice of the accused. The first, that counsel failed to perform to acceptable standard, is evident in the fact that much of the prosecution’s evidence had been accepted without the slightest challenge. The testimony of Schroeder, for instance, that he had heard Charlie Brown threaten to kill Pig Pen, should have been challenged during cross examination to determine the circumstances under which the threats were made, to determine if such pronouncements were merely exclamatory rather than substantial threats. There are many defenses to the allegation of threats which Lucy Van Pelt should have explored. Furthermore, Schroeder’s testimony that Pig Pen and Charlie Brown were rivals for the same drug territory should have been challenged as speculative, a mere opinion unless substantiated by hard evidence. Lucy should have also inquired into the background of the witnesses, particularly Snoopy who was called upon by the prosecution as expert witness. The proper research is basic to lawyering, and a lapse in this is simple negligence on the part of counsel. Had Lucy done her research to inquire into the background of Snoopy, she would have found sufficient cause not only to debunk the latter’s testimony for its questionable scientific basis (discussion to follow), but moreso the credibility of the witness, and to charge him with perjury for misrepresenting his qualifications under oath. Finally, the decision turned upon the gun, which had Charlie’s lone fingerprint. At this point, the gun’s ownership should have been challenged by defense counsel, as a single fingerprint is merely circumstantial, particularly since it was found in close proximity to Charlie at the time of the seizure. As such, Charlie had numerous opportunities to have touched it other than the time of the murder. As such, the evidence is circumstantial that Charlie was the killer as it could not place the time Charlie held the gun as the time of the killing. Snoopy’s testimony was crucial to establish this fact, with his innovative “fingerprint dating” method. Concerning expert testimony based on new scientific techniques, jurisprudence has established a traditional two-step process which still controls regarding "general principles of admissibility" of expert testimony based on new scientific techniques. The process requires that (1) the reliability of the method must be established, usually by expert testimony, and (2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.9By reliability (in the first step) is meant “the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." 10 This standard, known as the Kelly/Frye formulation, should remain a prerequisite to the admission of expert testimony regarding new scientific methodology in this state, even in light of the Dauber decision.11 "The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."12In the case of the “fingerprint dating” method forwarded by the prosecution, there were sufficient grounds to challenge this on the basis of prosecution’s failure to adduce evidence that such method was reliable according to other experts. This could have been done by a showing of publication in professional journals or peer review, that the method is testable, that a rate of error is known or established by competent procedures, or that the procedure is generally accepted.13It was ruled that when deciding on the admissibility of evidence yielded by a particular scientific technique, the court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error,14 “… and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation.”15None of these have been proven by the prosecution, which Lucy should have contested. There are numerous incidences in jurisprudence that the importance accorded new but doubtful scientific techniques have proven prejudicial to the accused, which Van Pelt should have been aware of. Challenge should have been posed against the accuracy of the method. When deciding on the admissibility of evidence yielded by a particular scientific technique, the known or potential rate of error should be established in court,16 as well as the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation.17 “Flawed forensic analyses played a significant role in many of these miscarriages of justice.”18In this case particularly, the testimony based on the controversial “fingerprint dating” technique and the credibility of the “expert witness” Snoopy were material in securing a conviction. Had they been debunked by Lucy, had she exerted the diligence ordinarily expected of counsel, then there is reasonable doubt that the circumstantial evidence of Schroeder would have been sufficient to secure the conviction of Charlie Brown, and he would have been acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. CONCLUSION Charlie Brown is justified in claiming that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, as a direct consequence of which his rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment had been prejudiced.There is reason to believe that if not for the incompetence of counsel in discharging her duties, the outcome of the trial would have been different. The Appellate Court should so rule in favor of this motion, and remand the case. Read More