Federal Rules of Evidence - Article Example

Federal Rules of Evidence Ms. Woodard’s testimony against Mr. Littlejohn indirectly incriminated the defendant in the murder crime that he was facing. The accused was on trial for the murder of a 24 year old Imette St. Guillen, who was found dumped in Brooklyn in 2006. Therefore, by kidnapping Ms. Woodward, the accused could have the same intentions. Importantly, there were no any other reasons adduced to explain the motive behind he kidnap, and the two had not met before. The accused also had hand cuffs, a gun, boots, and a jacket, all which point to a police officer, an image he used to dupe the victim. The two police handcuffs and the gun were illegally in the accused hands; here was no other explanation behind such possession of such items other than to cause malice and harm. Therefore, by the mere position of the police assortment, the accused had intent to commit a crime, which could mostly likely be explained to be a kidnap. Moreover, the cruel treatment of the victim at the hands of the defendant could be reliable evidence to portray the accused to have had no other intention other than to kill Ms. Woodward. Wallace (2013) explains that circumstantial evidence does not need to prove anything by itself, but has the power to point to the right direction, by proving something related to the question at hand. Consequently, the ill treatment of Ms. Woodward in the case points to the direction of intention to commit murder or grievous harm to the victim. The accused had handcuffed the victim, placed her at the back of the vehicle in an inhuman treatment. Moreover, when the victim inquired the intention behind the defendant’s actions after realizing he was not a police and tried to escape, the accused rained blows on her head several times, and covered her face. The victim was dizzy from the received blows. After opening the door finally, the defendant did not stop driving, but continued while the victim tumbled on the ground heavily. This could have caused death or fatal injuries. Therefore, these incidents lead to the conclusion that the defendant was indeed preparing to commit murder or grievous harm, similar to the case of the 24 year old Imette st. Guillen. To this extent, there was considerable ground to believe the defendant indeed murdered the victim. There are several pieces of evidence to incriminate the defendant in this case. The defendant tried to kidnap Ms. Woodward by pretending to be a policeman and even had hand cuffs that are part of police assortment. Moreover, the defendant had a gun. The gun, the kidnap, and the cruel treatment of Ms. Woodward may all be taken as credible evidence on the intention to commit murder. Ms. Woodward’s DNA was found in the defendant’s van, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that indeed the defendant kidnaped the victim. Moreover, the victim positively identified the van that she was kidnapped with at a news report on Ms. St Guillen’s murder. This means the victim directly and positively identified the defendant as the one who had kidnapped, and had caused grievous harm to her. These form part of reliable evidence for the prosecution to relate the two cases, one which led to murder of Ms. St Guillen, and one that the Ms. Woodward luckily managed to escape from the defendant. The evidence adduced before the court was purely circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence has the capacity to prove a question alone without any collaboration with other pieces of evidence. For example, if one enters a room from outside and says it is raining outside; such direct evidence from a trustworthy individual is enough to prove a question on what is happening outside without any more evidence. However, in the case at hand, the victim does not directly incriminate the defendant for the murder of Ms. St Guillen, but the evidence from Ms. Woodward needs more collaborating evidence to prove the defendant guilty of the murder. Wallace (2013) argues that circumstantial evidence similar to direct evidence may be powerful enough. The juror has to make a qualitative decision between the two. Wallace further elaborates that DNA has been the major way that homicide detectives use to incriminate a defendant. In this case, the DNA of Ms. Woodward in the vehicle of the defendant proved beyond any reasonable doubt the defendant had indeed kidnaped her. Though this does not directly incriminate the defendant regarding Ms Guillen murder, the events that occurred in the kidnapping portray a reliable trend that the defendant indeed kidnapped his victims, handcuffed them and throws them into his van, kills them with the gun, and dumps their body in different locations. Such evidence when collaborated with other direct or circumstantial evidence in the case would more likely incriminate the defendant in the murder of Ms. st Guillen. Federals Rules of Evidence, 404b explains that the general rule as stated in rule 404A, and which excludes character evidence does not in any way bar any evidence of specific acts where such evidence is offered under any other purpose other than proving an action in conformity with character. Therefore, proving such purposes as motive, intent, opportunity, plan among others other than to prove conformity with particular character is admissible under the Federal Law. An example of such is the case of Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), which illustrated that evidence of other crimes may be admissible in proving plan, design, or scheme. In the case at hand, Ms. Woodward’s evidence was only admitted and allowed for the narrow purpose of proving the identity of the perpetrator, but not as a proof of the defendant’s character in committing such crimes. Therefore, Ms. Woodward’s evidence did not in any way be admitted to show the character of the defendant. Moreover, the Woodward’s evidence aided much in proving the plan, scheme, and design through which the murder of Ms. St. Guillen could have been carried out, but not to portray the character of the defendant in carrying out such murder. In other words, the evidence was not admitted to show the character of the defendant as a serial murderer, but to reveal how such murder could have been carried out. This means as a judge, admitting such evidence in court was in accordance with section 404 b of the Federal Rules of Evidence. References Fahim, K., (2009). Witness Tells of Escaping Kidnapping by Defendant, The New York Times, 18th May http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/nyregion/19littlejohn.html?_r=0 Wallace, W.J., (2013).Cold-Case Christianity, CO: David C. Cook. Read More