Ear Prints and Fingerprints as Evidence - Essay Example

?Introduction to the Law of Evidence Introduction In case a crime has been committed, the normal procedure during the investigation process is for the police officers to try to find out who is responsible for the crime and ensure that he or she is punished for violating the law or the natural rule of justice. In case the criminal is caught while in the act of committing the robbery, then he or she must be apprehended and the police officers have to collect credible evidence to affirm that the suspect was caught while in the act of committing a crime and not that he/ she was a victim of circumstance. However, in case the police arrive at a crime scene and there is no suspect within the site, then the police officers have to conduct a thorough investigation of the crime scene and look for any possible links that could lead to the identification of the real suspect. In most occasions, the police dust for fingerprints at the crime scene in order to discover who was at the scene of crime and perhaps try to identify the key suspect(s). Additionally, in the recent past, police officers have been dusting the crime scene for ear prints even thou there has been heated debate on the reliability or accuracy of ear prints as evidence to a similar extent as fingerprints. In this regard, the National Training Center for Scientific Support for Crime Investigation in the United Kingdom has been a compiling a database for ear prints in order to prove that ear prints are not similar and hence, they can be equally used as evidence (Dennis, 2013). This present essay aims at providing answers to problem questions that are based on a case study that revolves around the law of evidence. 1. Whether the prosecution can rely upon ear prints and fingerprints as evidence To begin with, Smith and Gordon (1997) described evidence as a piece of information that aims at proving or refuting facts that have been presented. In law, evidence provides a basis for understanding what happened at a particular time. In the writings by Dennis (2013), he wrote that law of evidence is “the body of rules that determine whether and even how a piece of evidence can be used as a means of proving a fact.” Moreover, the law of evidence regulates what can be legally admissible in the court of law for the purpose of proving or refuting facts that have been presented in a given case and even, on occasion, how the court should consider the evidence that has been presented. In normal police investigations, police officers always try to discover who was at the crime scene, before, during, and after a crime has occurred, which could range from murder, burglary, or even rape. In order to identify the presence of somebody in a particular crime scene police officers look for Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample. Calladine et al. (2003) described DNA as “a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions that are used in the functioning and development of all living organisms. Police investigations rely on DNA samples, which can be obtained from blood samples, hair, fingerprints and even ear prints, because they are purely identical or interlined to one single person. Berry and Watson (2003) clarified on this point by stating that it is only DNA samples of identical twins that may match to a greater extent but ordinarily DNA are restricted to one particular person. Based on this knowledge, prosecutors greatly rely on DNA samples to prove the presence of a particular person at a crime scene and hence, relate him or her with the crime committed. In the present case study, police officers carrying out investigations into the death of Jeremy Spring dusted the deceased apartments for fingerprints and ear prints in order to identify the likely suspect, who murdered Jeremy Spring. Henry Wynther’s fingerprint and ear print sample were found within the apartment but the fingerprint sample had only six matching ridge characteristics while the ear print only showed gross features. With reference to the writings by Ramsland (2013), it can be stated that the prosecution will be allowed to rely upon the fingerprints and ear print evidence since they have partial matches to Henry’s DNA and according Hart (2003) this means that the evidence collected had at least one allele at every locus on Henry’s DNA. Secondly, the prosecution will be allowed to rely upon fingerprints and ear print evidence since Bieber (2006) argued that a fingerprint and ear print can be distorted in case a person is making the prints while in improper position of which it is correct to argue that Henry purportedly never made the prints in a desired manner. Thirdly, the fact that both fingerprint and ear print have a partial match to Henry’s DNA, the prosecution will argue that there are very minimal chances of the prints not belonging to Henry. 2. Whether Henry will be able to contest the DNA evidence by introducing expert evidence using Bayes’ Theorem to show that the DNA is not likely to be his According to Peter (2012), the Bayes’ theorem of probability theory suggests that the probability of a theory if true is affected by new piece of evidence. The theory refutes the total reliance of a DNA sample to make a judgment since new evidence can be introduced and it will alter the direction of the case. Henry will be able to contest the DNA evidence by introducing expert evidence using the Bayes’ theorem since there was no perfect match between the samples collected and his actual DNA. Therefore, there is probability that the samples collected at the crime scene belong to someone else which according to Carrier (2012), could be in the ratio f 1 to a million. Thompson et al. (2000) in their studies stated that Bayes’ Theorem could be used to change earlier beliefs that had been upheld such as the fact that a DNA match between the samples collected in a crime scene and particular suspect is a sure reason for issuing a guilty verdict. Therefore, Henry can rely on the Bayes’ theorem since it is able to can create odds for him being innocent. In particular, McGrayne (2011) suggested that Henry could introduce expert evidence using the Bayes’ theorem in order to under weigh the probability of the partial DNA matches being his. Thompson et al. (2000) stated that such tactic was used during the famous O.J Simpson trial for the murder of Ron Goldman and Nichole Simpson. In this case, there were various DNA samples that were collected at the crime scene, which included blood samples that were collected from O.J’s car that was on the driveway, the foyer of the house, a sock that was besides his bed, om a leather glove, and in his bathroom. O.J’s defense team applied the Bayes’ theorem to discredit the DNA evidence by stating that the police officers must have planted the evidences because they were abnormally “too” many and there were allegations of racism from the police officers handling the case. 3. The evidential issues that would arise at the trial of speeding and excess alcohol charges against Henry In case during the trial Henry wishes to assert that PC White is not a ‘proper’ police constable then he would be required to state to the court what a ‘proper’ police constable is and the merits of a person to be a ‘proper’ police constable. Additionally, Henry would be expected to prove the allegations that PC White is not a “proper” police constable and this would involve bring to the court substantial evidence that would prove his allegations. PC White can refute such allegations by simply issuing the court with a copy of his appointment letter to act as evidence for his position. Secondly, in case Henry wishes to assert that the speed camera and the breath test machine were not working properly at the relevant time then he must produce credible records showing how a perfect speed camera and breath test machine works. Additionally, Henry must prove that at the relevant time the machines did not respond how they are expected in such a circumstance. Thirdly, in case Henry wishes to call fifteen witnesses to show that he is a brilliant driver who never breaks the speed limit he will be require d to provide evidence to the court that these witnesses are properly trained and even certified to assess someone’s driving skills. In addition, Henry must provide evidence that the fifteen witnesses have on several occasion tested his driving skills to affirm that he does not break the speed limit. 4. The burden of proof and the standard of proof in the case According to Dennis (2013), the burden of proof refers to a legal duty bestowed on a party to either validate or refute the facts presented in a case. Keane and McKeown (2012) added that in criminal cases the burden of proof is normally bestowed on the prosecutor who is required to prove to the court that the defendant without doubt or relying on credible evidence is guilty of the charges that have been brought against him. Turow (2009) on his part stated that in certain jurisdictions, the defendant has the burden of proving facts that might create a credible defense such as the plea of insanity. The prosecutor, who can be the district attorney or a hired counsel in the murder trial of Jeremy Spring, will bear the burden of proof. Therefore, the prosecutor will be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fingerprints and ear prints belong to Henry with an insignificant chance of an error. Secondly, the prosecutor will bear the burden of proving that Henry was actually at the crime scene and that indeed he had been the one who had strangled Jeremy. While trying to prove this accusation the prosecutor will be required to prove to the court that either Henry was a killer on the loose or he knew Jeremy and because of credible reasons, he strangled Jeremy. Thirdly, the prosecutor will be required to prove that Henry was speeding away from the crime scene. Standard of proof has been described by Clermont (2013), as the level of proof that is required in a particular case, which is established by evaluating the evidences that have been presented. Barlow (2013) wrote that the standard of proof is highest in criminal cases whereby the prosecutor is required prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed offence. Therefore, the standard f proof required at the murder trial should be impeccable and directly linking Henry with the murder of Jeremy. In a scenario whereby, Henry relies on the defense of insanity then his liabilities will be excused by the court and criminal charges against him might be dropped. However, Henry must provide irrefutable evidence to show that at the time of committing the murder he was mentally ill (Allen, 2007). In a scenario whereby he wants to rely on the defense of diminished responsibility then it would mean he suffered from temporary memory impairment whilst committing the murder. It would be best suited for Henry to rely on the defense of diminished capacity since it was proved by PC White that he was drunk and therefore, his mental capacity was impaired temporary by the alcohol. Bonnie et al. (2008) argued that such a defense is only capable of reducing the charges or sentencing that would have otherwise being handed over to him. This defense will not have any evidential implications since it was already proved that Henry was intoxicated within the hour, which Jeremy died. 5. Impossibility of Henry being convicted because of circumstantial evidence According to Schulman (2010), circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that relies on a collection of facts other than a particular fact that ought to be proved or it relies on inferences to be established before a fact can be established. Charges against Henry are built on circumstantial evidence of which key among them is the DNA samples obtained at Jeremy apartments. Therefore, his confidence is well-placed because of the fact that the court will be at its own discretion to determine if indeed the presence of DNA sample that match with Henry’s and even the fact that Henry was caught speeding from the murder scene were enough evidence to prove that it was Henry who strangled Jeremy. References Allen, W. 2007. The Insanity Defense: The Complete Prose. New York, US: Random House Trade Paperbacks Barlow, J. 2013. The Burden of Proof. Florida, US: Peach Publishing Berry, A. and Watson, J. 2003. DNA: the secret of life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Bieber, F. 2006.“Finding Criminals Through DNA of Their Relatives” Science. 312 Sci. 1315, 1315–16. Bonnie, R. Jeffries, J. and Low, P. 2008. A Case Study in the Insanity Defense- The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. Eagan, Minnesota: Foundation Press Calladine, C., Drew, H. Luisi, B. and Travers, A. 2003. Understanding DNA: the molecule & how it works. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press Carrier, R. 2012. Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. New York: Prometheus Books, Publishers Clermont, K. 2013. Standards of Decision in Law: Psychological and Logical Bases for the Standard of Proof, Here and Abroad. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press Dennis, I. 2013. The Law of Evidence. London, UK: Sweet & Maxwell Hart, A. 2003. The Beginner's Guide to Interpreting Ethnic DNA Origins for Family History: How Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi & Europeans Are Related to Everyone Else. iUniverse Publications Keane, A. and McKeown, P. 2012. The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press McGrayne, S. 2011. The Theory that Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, & Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press Peter L. 2012, "Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction", Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publications Ramsland, K. 2013. All About Fingerprints and Other Impressions. Retrieved from: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/fingerprints/8.html. Accessed on [06.11.2013] Schulman, P. 2010. Circumstantial Evidence. Booklocker.com, Incorporated, Stone, J. 2013. "Bayes’ Rule: A Tutorial Introduction", University of Sheffield, Psychology. Smith, G. and Gordon, J. 1997. The Admission of DNA Evidence in State and Federal Courts. Fordham Law Review Vol. 65 (6) Thompson, J. Danielson, S. Hartman, E. Bucheger, D. and Koplitz, J. 2000. Trial by Probability. Retrieved from: http://www.uwstout.edu/mscs/upload/Trial-by-Probability.pdf Accessed on [06.11.2013] Turow, S. 2009. The Burden of Proof. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Universal Ledien. 2006. Ear prints as evidence. Retrieved from: http://phys.org/news11177.html. Accessed on [06.11.2013]   Read More