American Constitution Law: Mock Judicial Decision - Case Study Example

Mock Judicial Decision affiliation Mock Judicial Decision In making decision in this case, it is crucial to look at the facts that may affect the decision taken. In this case Detective Sergeant Ron DeLaponte and Detective Brenda Diaz were called to a scene of investigation. In this case an elderly man called Mr. Thompkins was found on the floor of his apartments by his manager who was concerned about the amount of unpicked mail on the victim’s mat. Deputy Tim Weatherby made entry when they were called. First responders moved some valuables as a way of safeguarding them against burglary. They also moved a 45 caliber automatic pistol that was on a shelf up in the bedroom closet. The pistol contained the deputies’ handprints because he took time to pass it back and forth. When Slim Workman was arrested, he was not given the chance to be represented by a lawyer and no evidence was excluded in the trial. These issues are crucial in handing over the decision by the Supreme Court. Case Decision In making this decision, it is crucial to look at evidence that can be used in this case. This is because from a quick glance of this case, it is clear that some of the evidence presented in the previous court were either contaminated of were gotten in an unlawful way. The officers in some cases also did not follow the correct procedure that is required in successfully solving such a case. This is crucial because any successful criminal justice system should ensure that the treatment of each individual in the case is fair. The Fourth Amendment protects people from searches that go against an individual expectation of privacy. This reasonable expectation exists where an individual actually expects privacy and this expectation is legal to the whole society (Stephens, 2006). This is seen in the case of Kyllo V. United States. In this case the police used a device which is not common to the general public that made the search unlawful. The police obtained evidence from the defendant’s home by using a thermal imaging device. This evidence was on marijuana growing operation in his house. This device checked if the heat emanating from the house was consistent with the high intensity lamps that are used when growing marijuana. It was discovered that the garage side wall and roof were relatively hot as compared to the other parts of his house and his neighbors’ houses. With this, a warrant was issued and indeed agents found marijuana being grown. This was on the grounds that Kyllo did not attempt to conceal the heat that was coming from his house. However, the courts decided that this search was not lawful because the police used a device which is not common to the public. The courts also decided that due to the fact that the device is not common, the police used the for the purpose of having a search. This is protected by the minimum expectation of privacy that is in existence and for which people expect. To withdraw this protection would allow police technology in going against the privacy lawfully guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. The court also decided that using this technology in obtaining information relating to the interior of the house is intrusion of an area that is protected by the constitution. This is because without the technology, the information would have been obtained through physical intrusion. However, there are areas where people should not expect privacy. The fact that the deputy made entry is justified because this was done in good faith. The manager was worried about the tenant and he had tried to call the victim’s roommate with no success. A search for evidence was also justified because this had become a scene crime when they found the body of the victim. This automatically warranted for police officer to search for any evidence at the scene of the crime. The deputy’s decision to look around the apartment once they had seen the body was right because this ensured that the scene of the crime is secure. When arriving at the crime scene, the first step that needs to be taken is securing the scene by keeping the public away from the scene. This is normally by using a yellow tape that helps show the area marked as restricted. This is crucial in making sure that no evidence is being tampered with (Bennett, 2007). While at the crime scene, direct observation will be a crucial tool in the initial investigation process. This is because usually the persons who do such crimes may be there when the first responders arrive. Observation also includes looking at the scene to see what is tampered with. This is according to the case of Maryland v. Buie (1990) which concluded that where a police is making an arrest has reasons to believe that a person may be present in another part of the house, who may threaten their safety, they may conduct a protective sweep in order to ensure their own safety even if there is no search warrant (Mason, 2012). The decision to move some valuable before the forensic team arrived at the scene was not justified. The fact that the deputy moved the World War II-era 45 caliber automatic pistol from the bedroom closet was not wise. Through this action, the evidence was contaminated, which can be seen from the fact that the deputies’ prints were seen on the pistol’s serial numbers. Even though it was lawful to confiscate any handgun found in a residential house, this cannot be used in court as evidence. The forensic team cannot be able to lift viable prints of any suspects from the pistol. If they succeed, they will take a longer amount of time to separate suspects’ prints from those of the deputies’. The pistol can therefore not be used as evidence in this case. Potential evidence should be taken while making sure that nothing is touched to avoid contamination. Collection of evidence, tagging it, logging it, and then packing it for examination in a lab is crucial in any investigation. Fingerprinting and identification tools are very useful. Fingerprints have always been a very crucial source of evidence in this case. Once identified, the fingerprints can be lifted with the tape or photograph. Once the prints are lifted, portable devices will help in identifying if any fingerprint found at the crime scene matches anyone who is already in the system. At this point, the steps taken by the first responders in securing the scene will determine the success of collecting evidence. Having interviews is crucial for investigators when they want to gain knowledge of the act from different individuals. During this stage, the right person needs to ask the right questions to witnesses or the victims of the crime. These questions need to answer questions like who is the victim in the crime. This has proven to be useful in this case because the manager was able to provide tangible cause of action by the police officers to enter the house. This has made the entry and search legal. He also gave a clue that will help in the investigation. When all the evidence has been collected, those which cannot be analyzed at the scene are usually taken to the lab to undergo a forensic science investigation. This is mostly applied in cases that involve robbery, murder, and kidnapping. These clues help investigators track them relatively easily. Even if a criminal is careful when committing his act, there must be a small trace of his presence at the scene. DNA testing from the scene can be compared to a suspects DNA. Slim Workman was arrested even before the detectives had finished writing their version of what happened in the apartment. Slim Workman was surrounded by the SWAT team holding automatic rifles. They informed Slim that it would be wise for him to confess and that things would be hard for him is he had access to a lawyer. The confession cannot be used in court because this was made under duress. The criterion for a successful criminal justice system is to ensure that there is respect of each individual’s especially the defendants rights. No defendant should be coerced into making a confession as this will not lead to justice. In the case of Brown v. Mississippi, the defendant confessed to murder solely as a result of physical torture. The State’s high court overruled the confession as it was not made voluntarily and because there was a violation of the Fourteen Amendment rights this act (Mason, 2012). In the case of Powell v. Alabama, a group of black men were falsely accused of sexually assaulting a group of white women. The lawyers representing the young men had no opportunity to look at the evidence leading to the death penalty of eight out of the nine men. After an appeal, the courts decided that for a fair trial; an individual needs the right to counsel. For this reason, the court asked for a retrial. According to Miranda v. Arizona, the prosecution cannot use statements resulting from a custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it can be proven that the use of procedure secure the privilege against self-incrimination. This means that it is crucial that law enforcement officer ensure that when they take a suspect into custody, the individual is not in any way deprives his rights in a significant way. The decision made in this case was based on the fact that the police interrogation was regarded as coercive that was contrary to the protection which is assured by the self-incrimination clause which is the protection afforded by the criminal justice system. In this case, Chief Justice Warren indicated failure to warn suspects of their rights and failure to grant them access to counsel are factors to consider when applying the self-incriminatory clause. Slim Workman also needed to be fairly represented, and if he is not able to afford the representation then the State should have offered him representation. Prior to any form of questioning, a suspect needs to be warned of his/her right to remain silent, and that anything that he/she says can be used as evidence in a court of law. The suspect also needs to be informed of his/her right to be represented by an attorney who can be appointed or retained. If an individual at any point indicates that he/she wishes to consult with an attorney before being questioning, this wish needs to be granted. Likewise, if a suspect is alone and indicates that he does not want to be interrogated, the police need to stop questioning the person (Stephens, 2006). The simple fact that the person might have answered some questions on voluntary basis does not prevent him from refraining from answering further questions until consulting and attorney. If the police do not tell a suspect of their Miranda right before the interrogation, information obtained cannot be used in the criminal court except if there is concern about public safety. The right to fair representation is seen in the case of Powell v. Alabama. In this case, a group of black men were falsely accused of sexually assaulting a group of white women. The lawyers representing the young men had no opportunity to look at the evidence leading to the death penalty of eight out of the nine men. After an appeal, the courts decided that for a fair trial; an individual needs the right to counsel. For this reason, the court asked for a retrial. Case conclusion After taking an analysis of the crucial aspects that led to the conviction of Workman’s some of the evidence presented in the trial court need to be removed. A summary of the evidence include; The World War II- era 45 caliber automatic pistol because it is a contaminated with the deputies’ fingerprints. Slim Workman’s confession cannot be used in this case because he was not given his Miranda rights by not being given the right to a lawyer and by being coerced into confessing. He was also drunk when he made his confession. There is a high possibility that he confessed just because he was under duress and was also under the influence of alcohol. He may have not acted in this way if he was sober and if he had proper representation. Even though the police officers made way into the house, this was justified because this was done in good faith. The manager was worried about the tenant and he had tried to call the victim’s roommate with no success. A search for evidence was also justified because this had become a scene crime when they found the body of the victim. This automatically warranted for police officer to search for any evidence at the scene of the crime (Ferdico, 2009). The prosecution has however, not presented any tangible proof that will lead to the conviction of Slim Workman. This means that Slim Workman cannot be found guilty based on the evidence presented. Furthermore, there is also no mention of past conduct that can lead to the conclusion that Slim Workman is a danger to the public. There is no history presented to the court that Workman has a history or is wanted for a previous violent crime based on DNA identification. According to United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 749 (1987) The court decided that DNA identification of a suspect who is involved in violent crime provides crucial information to law enforcement officers and the judicial officials in determining the future dangerousness of an arrestee. This case clearly shows the importance of proper collection and analysis of evidence in a crime scene to ensure that there is proper conviction of a case. Police officers as first responders need to have considerable knowledge on how to handle a crime scene. They have a big responsibility when they are first people on the crime scene. They need to ensure that evidence is not compromised and that suspects are apprehended. They need to make sure that suspects are given their constitutional rights. This is indeed crucial because the suspect may claim that he was intimidated making the testimony void to the courts. Police officers need to take extra caution while approaching a suspect to avoid tampering with the case. It is crucial to remember that the Criminal Justice System aims at convicting the guilty and protect the innocent. Fairness and justice must be preserved in the society based on the evidence presented in court. Referencing Bennett, W. et. al. (2007). Criminal investigation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Ferdico, J. et. al. (2009). Criminal procedure for the criminal justice professional. CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Mason, A. T., & Stephenson, D. G. (2012). American constitutional law: Introductory essays and selected cases. Upper Saddle River [N.J.: Longman. Stephens, O. (2006). Unreasonable searches and seizures: Rights and liberties under the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-Clio. Read More