Criminal Evidence, Arguments in Relation to Hearsay - Essay Example

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE al Affiliation) Introduction The case study presents a scenario where the defendant (Miss Maggie) has been accused of calling an alarm concerning a bomb within the premises of her college. This alarm caused high levels of tension and scare among other college students; therefore she has been taken to court charged with the above offense. In order to provide substantial evidence, the prosecutor and the attorney has invited a witness (Mr. Mickie) to provide testimony concerning the above allegations. Discussion A variety of issues emerge from this case, to begin with, Miss Maggie argues that her reasoning was based on the fact that she heard a student along the hall was alluding that a bomb had been strategically placed in the building and would blow off at a later time (Noon). The other issue that arises in this case is the fact that Miss Maggie is not in position to provide evidence by showing the court the exact person who uttered these words; instead she seeks assistance from her defendant concerning this matter. Additionally, the prosecutor and the defendant have invited a witness (Mickie) who testifies that he actually heard Miss Maggie uttering the words that caused a scare in the college compound. However, he asserts that Miss Maggie informed him that she heard this information from an unspecified colleague. Arguments in Relation to Hearsay The utterances by the prosecutor and the defendant may be ascribed to the corpus of hearsay which has had various definitions depending on the scope of usage. There are various ways in which the court may rule the allegations of both the defendant and the prosecutor as mere hearsay. The first reasoning emerges from the fact that hearsay may regarded as the expression of presence sense impression; that is, the making statements by an individual at a certain period concerning perceived phenomenon (Federal Government 2008). In this case perception may arise from actual visualization of the scenarios or even hearing from third parties. This aspect may capacitate the court to rule that both the witness and the defendant statements are based on mere hearsay. Secondly, the statement made by the defendant may also be regarded as rumors which may also be referred as second hand information (CPS 2009). In this case, Maggie’s arguments may not be admissible owing to the fact that she cannot provide proof to support her idea that she heard the information/rumor from heard party. Certain laws related to hearsay posits that; hearsay evidence may be acceptable to prove that a person actually uttered some words but not admissible to prove facts concerning validity and accuracy of the information there in. The above stipulation is imperative to the court in making decision regarding Maggie’s case, specifically when dealing information provided by the Witness. That is Mickie’s testimony may be considered an evidence to prove that Maggie actually uttered the statements but, may not be used to confirm the validity and accuracy of Maggie’s information. Hearsay may also arise due to excitement leading to certain utterances; that is information disseminated when one is under certain forms of excitement (Tregarthen 1999). Maggie’s scenario may be evaluated in relation certain what prompted her to utter such words for instance stress et cetera. Such kind of utterance may be pose scenarios where one undergoes exception from the rules and regulations of hearsay. On the other hand, Maggie may also not be charged or exempted from the rule of hearsay owing to the fact that the witness and the prosecutor do not provide tangible evidence concerning records which indicate that such utterances were frequent activities conducted by Maggie; lack of substantial evidence may lead to the ruling that the allegations were untrustworthy. In the absence of recorded recollection, which may occur due to the fact that Maggie may have made such utterances but may not be in a position to recall the actual words spoken or even a proof by the witness that Maggie actually uttered the same words as presented in the Court by the prosecutor. In the case of Maggie it is apparent that she is not in a position to provide certain facts concerning her case for instance; she cannot point out the exact person who mention the existence of a bomb in the building. This may force the court to exempt her from the rule of hearsay. Consequently, since there is no evidence to support Mickie’s testimony, it may not be considered hearsay; this is due to the fact that, hearsay must be proved by an evidence to show that the actual statements presented in court were correct. Apparently, Mickie’s testimony also indicate that the actual utterances of Maggie were that; she heard some student mention that there was a bomb in the building; this is evident enough to prove that Maggie’s statement were based on hearsay (Emanating from the fact that she heard it from an anonymous person). Maggie is also not in a position to point out who exactly made the statements concerning the bomb; she tells the police that she was not in a position to visualize the actual person who uttered the words. In this case, her statements may also be regarded as may hearsay due to lack of evidence of the source. Lack of provision of evidence is of the original source of information is also proved by Mickie who testifies that Maggie was not in a position to testify the exact person who made the statements. Conclusion Basically, Maggie’s and Mickie’s statement may be considered hearsay; both parties are not in a position to provide evidence concerning the original source of the information. Maggie bases her reasoning on second hand information without providing the original source of the information or evidence that the actual alleged scenario will take place. On the other hand, Mickie asserts that the original information he received from Maggie indicated that she received it from a third party. However, he does not prove that Maggie gave or pointed out the original source of her information. All these facts may be used to rule out the case in relation to hearsay. Both parties seem to provide information to support their basis of argument; the statements lack fact and cannot be proved to be accurate and valid. This makes them a just mere hearsay References Federal Government. (2008). Federal Rules of Evidence. Atlanta: LII. John, S. (2011). Rules Related to Hearsay. Oxford : Oxford University. Tregarthen, J. B. (1999). The law of hearsay evidence. London: Stevens and Sons. CPS. (2009). Hearsay. Southwark Bridge: Crown Prosecution Service. Read More