Discussing the Law Cases in the United States - Assignment Example

Case1: The investigations and incidences that led to the arrest and subsequent conviction of the defendant are defective. Both Trooper Glover and Officer D’Onofrio obtained the evidence they presented in court without the consent of the defendant. The defendant lawyer could use this to appeal against the conviction of the defendant. Glover pretended to be a customer and he alleged that the defendant sold him heroin worth $20. No other person was mentioned in this transaction to prove that the defendant actually sold the heroin to Mr. Glover. Officer D’onofrio was backing him at a distance and he came afterwards. He took a single picture of the defendant without the accompaniment of Mr. Glover, the alleged buyer. He only relied on the description given to him by Mr. Glover. This is another hitch; what if there is another person who resembles the defendant and may be is the one who sold the alleged heroin to Glover? It is hard for the officer to prove that the picture he took was actually of the person Glover described. Glover admits that he had neither met the defendant nor had he seen him before, this also makes his positive identification of the defendant challengeable in court of appeal. In short, the procedure the officer used to obtain evidence of the case is improper according to the US federal constitution. The defendant lawyer can argue that the evidence given is inadmissible since it is derived by Glover pretence to lure his client to commit a crime. The US criminal penal code states that; ..”Whenever evidence is objected to as inadmissible because it was discovered as a result of or otherwise derived from compelled testimony or evidence, the burden shall be upon the person offering the challenged evidence to establish a source independent of the compelled testimony or evidence…”( Sec. 54-47a). Since the court relied on evidence given by Mr. Glover, the defence lawyer may request the court of appeal to ask the prosecution to establish a source independent of this one given in court. This make the evidence given in the court that led to conviction of the defendant inadmissible and challengeable. Therefore the prosecution was not in a position to proof that the defendant was actually the one who sold the heroin to Glover thus the court cannot affirm that the defendant actually sold the heroin in the first place. It should be noted that the defence lawyer has all the right to apply for rejection of any information or evidence given under the U.S Federal criminal penal code. The federal court can upon motion by the defence lawyer at any time dismiss any information and order defendant discharged. (Sec.54-56 ). Case 2: According to U.S Federal criminal penal code, the officer investigating a crime or a suspect is supposed to obtain a search warrant in order to search the premise or property of the suspect. In addition, he is also supposed to request for suspect’s consent to search his property. In some cases, a search warrant is not required, especially when consent is given by a person in control of the premises or when the evidence is in plain view. When police make an arrest, they are also permitted to conduct a search, such as for weapons or other danger. Searches are also allowed in emergency situations where the public is at risk. In this case we are not told about the search warrant granted to the officer who acted on a tip off that Jimeno might be carrying narcotics in his car. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant) The defendant allowed the officer to search his car. The consent to search the car include the closures there in. Therefore the brown bag containing the cocaine is part and parcel of the defendant car since is found inside his car. The Supreme Court erred in its ruling since the officer only searched inside the car of the defendant and not outside. To rule that the consent does not extend to closed containers inside the car goes against the evidence found in Jimeno car. We might also not allow the use of the cocaine found inside the brown bag as evidence since what the officer found inside the car was brown bag and this is the only thing he could have used if allowed as evidence. The cocaine evidence can only be admissible in a court of law if the officer sought further consent to open the bag from the defendant. Failure of the defendant to give consent, the officer was supposed to seek court warrant to open the bag containing the cocaine to prove his case against the defendant. This way the evidence can be admitted in court as evidence. The defendant may claim that the officer violated the consent of search by extending to the closed container in his car. Moreover, The fact that Mr. Jimeno gave the officer consent to search his car, the court may admit the evidence and rule out the violation of search procedures as in case of Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), in Supreme Court of the United States. In this case the court ruled that, the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who the police reasonably believed possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched. The ruling continued the precedent of the "co-occupant consent rule" announced by the court in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). 1 Case 3: The U.S federal rule of evidence 901(A) stipulates that, the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts and upheld in case such as United States v. McMillan. In McMillan, the court ruled that where a government agent testified that he heard the voice of an informant at all times when he was making a recording of a telephone conversation, that this part of the conversation was accurate, and that immediately after the telephone calls were completed, a tape was replayed by the agent in the informant's presence to verify that the conversation had in fact been recorded and that the instruments were operating correctly, it was sufficiently established that the recordings were true and accurate as a basis for their admission in evidence.2 In the Lopez case, we are not told whether IRS agent’s recorder was really tested to affirm its proper functionality. What we are told is that after the IRS arranged for another meeting with Lopez; he recorded the conversation where he alleged Lopez attempted to bribe him. What we are not told in this case is whether the IRS played the tape immediately to Lopez to verify that the conversation between him and Lopez had actually been recorded. The court can rule out the tape as evidence in the case if the IRS failed to replay the tape immediately after recording the conversation. The defence lawyer can argue against the case by implying that the tape was malfunction and that may be the taped information was from another person or that conversation recorded and what actually transpired during the second meeting are different. The court in this scenario had no obligation to admit the tape evidence since the prosecution did not follow the right procedure in collecting its evidence. Despite the hitch, the prosecution can argue for the admissibility of the tape evidence against Lopez since the IRS agent (witness) was all around and heard the voice of the defendant when the recording was taking place. This can be supported in a federal court if the prosecution by use of a voice expert established the authenticity of the tape by identifying the voices in the tape. However the voice expert must have credibility in hi/her expertise otherwise the evidence given by him/her would be inadmissible. Moreover, the content of the tape will play a major role. If the recorded voices identify the Lopez (defendant), place of meeting and the bribery allegation before the court and other contents relevant to this case, the tape can be admitted as evidence against Lopez.3 Case 4: The use of Passive alcohol sensor (PAS) has of the late generated a lot of debate on the effectiveness of the device. Opponents of the device argue that it had contributed to the infringement of individual privacy and violates human right to privacy. One of the legal shortfalls of this device usage is that, the officer can use it without the drivers consent and the outcome of it leads to the search and further investigation to establish whether the driver is actually drunk. The search prompted by the signal sent by the PAS to the officer constitutes a bleach of right to privacy. The U.S federal law stipulates clearly that the suspect investigated on by law enforcer must be informed of the ongoing investigation but the PAS system does the investigation without invoking suspect’s consent. The officer investigating the signal by PAS should first attain a warrant of search from a court of law before proceeding with the search. Otherwise the signal alone is not sufficient enough to constitute a search. References Steve Cain, “Sound Recordings as Evidence in Court Proceedings”, http://expertpages.com/news/sound_recordings_evidence.htm U.S Federal Constitution, criminal law, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub Wikipedia free internet encyclopedia, Evidence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence IllinoisvRodriguesz http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=497&invol=177 Read More