Criminal Justice The Peanuts Gang - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages This essay discusses that 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. The 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, as well as the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation.
“Flawed forensic analyses played a significant role in many of these miscarriages of justice.” In 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.
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 a 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....
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 ...Download file to see next pagesRead More