Law of Criminal Evidence - Essay Example

Law of Criminal Evidence Case 1 The cases concerning Robert, Asif and Molly bring forth various aspects of criminal law. Robert had confessed in two different occasions that he had stolen the iPods. In this particular case, the prosecutor had no burden of proof since Robert had voluntarily admitted to stealing the iPods. Although he later denied the claims against him concerning the iPods theft, his prior statements, both formal and informal, contradicted him. The prosecution already had evidence of his admission to the theft, which were strong enough to convict him. The evidential burden in this case had been brought forth due to the presence of the admission statements from the police interrogations. However, the prosecution would justify their evidential burden if the prosecutor gave more evidence linking Robert to the theft of the iPods. In Asif and Molly’s cases, the prosecution had the burden of proof. The standard applicable here is the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ legal standard1. Asif had been accused of stealing iPods and so was Molly. Although the evidential burden was represented by the presentation of witnesses who claimed that they saw Asif stealing the iPods, the evidential burden was yet to be depicted as far as Molly was concerned. There are no witnesses who associated that Molly had taken part in the theft. The prosecutor had the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, to present evidence linking Molly to the theft of the iPods. In the case of Bratty vs. Attorney General of Northern Ireland2, Lord Moris stated that a mouthy excuse should not be concluded as enough evidence to convict the accused. The manager’s allegations depicting that Molly and asif had taken part in the theft was not enough evidence. Robert’s own confession of his participation in the theft plays a major role in the evidence burden3. However, Robert might raise defenses to persuade the jury to abandon the confessions. Robert should admit that the confessions were made put of deception. The store manager had claimed that he would not involve the police if Robert admitted to committing the act. Additionally, the police had also deceived him by telling him that they would slump the allegations if he admitted to stealing the iPods. In both cases, he had been deceived into the confession. Although this is a good defense, the prosecution might counteract this by arguing that the defendant did not have to worry about the involvement of the police and the court if he was innocent. The fact that he was afraid of the police and the court meant that there was something he knew about the crime, which he did not want to bring forward. Such claims would act as a disadvantage to Robert’s case. In other words, it would be hard to convince the jury to abandon the confessions made by Robert when he was interrogated by the manager and the police. Legally, the police had a right to advice Robert about his right to remaining silence. However, advising him that engaging a solicitor would lengthen the process was a misguidance. This is because they knew that he would eventually need one since they were sure that they he would be taken to court. On the other hand, the police might claim that they were simply using tactics to make him tell the truth. The law gives accused individuals a right to silence when interrogated by the police. However, sections 34-39 of the 1994 act imposed limitations on this law. In the case of Rice vs. Connolly, it was held that individuals had no right to answer police questions if they are not arrested4. However, this section gives the jury the right to make adverse inferences as a result of the accused person’s silence. In other words, Molly was expected to mention that he was under duress when he performed the crime. Molly was expected to mention that Asif was mad and that he had threatened to break her legs she failed to carry out the act of crime. She should have further mentioned that the she was sure Asif would go ahead with his threat due to his mental state. Failing to present this important information during the time of police interrogation gave the jury the right to invoke adverse inference thus stating that the information was not important to thecase. Tiera had given very important evidence against Asif. She said that she had seen a man of Asif’s stature carry a bag full of iPods out of the shop. Tiera identified the content in the bag because it fell and the content spilled out. However, it was dark and wet thus the defense claimed that his observation could have been altered by this dark and wet condition. The trial judge might tell the jury to disregard the evidence5. This is because Tiera’s vision might have been blurred by the weather condition and the dark state of that moment. Additionally, Tiera said that the man fitted Asif’s physical descriptions. He was not sure that it was him. However, the court could consider the distance between Tiera and the accused. It was easier to make mistakes when one was positioned further from he object as opposed to a closer distance. Case 2 Robert will have a chance of calling Dr. Castellino to the stand. This is because expert is called for in order to support other evidences in existent. Additionally, the physician is considered a specialist in the field of mentality and so the facts presented have been contemplated upon. Additionally, experts are allowed to give their evidence based on other unpublished works. In this case, Dr. Castellino will be giving his evidence based on his own experience and the unpublished works of other experts in the same field. Additionally, the defense presented by the defense was of scientific nature and so it needed scientific evidence. Scientific based defenses regularly required an expert’s testimony based in the same field thus presenting scientific facts. There are particular issues that relate to admissibility of an expert’s opinion. The expert’s evidence must be related or relevant to the case’s issues. The issue in question concerned mental functions or dysfunctions. In particular, they were referred to as ‘mentalism’ or ‘mind magic’. Additionally, the evidence to be presented must of necessity as far as the fact is concerned. In this case, the evidence in question proved that there was such a condition as inattentional blindness and it could have caused him to cause the accident even though he was careful. As Robert’s solicitor asked questions to support his defense, the prosecutor would ask questions to challenge the presented evidence6. The evidence to be presented by the expert should not violate other rules. This means that the expert’s advice to be presented must be in line with the other rules relating to the case. Violation of any rules makes the given evidence void. Above all, the witness to be presented must be a qualified expert. This means that he/she has the paper qualifications and the experience to be considered an expert in the field. In this case, it was significant for doctor to present his qualification and experience documents to prove that he/she was indeed an expert in the field. Additionally, it was important to present evidence of the unpublished works in order to prove that there was in deed other experts who of the same opinion7. Additionally, too many experts must not be presented regarding the same issue. In this case, too many doctors cannot be presented in order to talk about inattentional blindness. References Faigman, D. L. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, Minn: West Group, 2002. Heller, K. J, and Markus D. Dubber. The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law Books, 2011. Keane, A. The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Murphy, P. and Glover, R. Murphy on Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011. Robinson, P. H, Garvey, S. P. and Ferzan, K. K.. Criminal Law Conversations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Schmalleger, F., Hall, D., Dolatowski, J. J. and Schmalleger, F. Criminal Law Today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010. Read More