Criminal Evidence - Assignment Example

? Unit 8 Question Without the privilege of evidence the system would not operate effectively since the decision onwhether or not to put a person on trial mostly depends on the evidence found. Great care however must be taken when prosecuting an individual for the sake of not only the person in discussion but also the community at large. With this effect an individual should only be prosecuted after all the evidence has been collected, analyzed, monitored and the surrounding conditions have been completely evaluated (Siegel, 2009). Those in charge of the evidence in the modern prosecution are expected and required to perform their duties with skills, professionalism and vision to ensure that no evidence goes missing or no additional evidence that was not there is added to fabricate the case. This is why some evidence is kept for years under protection to ensure that every suspected criminal is rightfully charged. Doctor and attorney client privileges exist because every individual has a right to defend themselves by using an attorney before being charged. The defendants also have the right for a doctor in case they have medical complications. Every suspected criminal is expected to have an attorney who are of high qualities, excellent judgment, absolute integrity, fearless and have good knowledge of the case and the evidence presented to them (Totten, 2012). Privileges to an attorney and provision of doctor are very essential as it prevent innocent people from being prosecuted or individuals who are found guilty being given a fair trial that guarantees them a reasonable sentence depending on the crimes they have been found guilty for. The way a case is handled does not only affect the prosecuted and the prosecutors but the society at large. This is why the decision or the judgment of the prosecutors should not be based on the public pressure, political influence or media instead should be based on the evidence found and the level the attorneys can prove the guilt or the innocence of the person at interest. This is why the prosecutors say that it is never easy being the one to make a judgment of whether a person is guilty or not, being able to put someone in jail makes the journey so lonely that there are people waiting for your decision and whichever you give one party will be hurt. The job takes character; it dictates one to have self confidence and inner strength (Totten, 2012). Without having solid moral direction and be compassionate in their approach the society will judge them and try to bring them down. Where there is evidence, the prosecutor should be guided by common sense and fairness because the decision they make may extremely affect the lives of many others than the suspected criminal. Suspected criminal should have privilege for an attorney who is supposed to represent them regardless of the amount of evidence found against them. This ensures that the evidence provided is properly marshaled and severely adduced because there can never be a fair trial without fair prosecution and presentation of enough evidence. The attorney also tries to reduce the charges brought against their clients by taking up deals (Siegel, 2009). The attorney is required to have the client attorney privilege of ensuring that they keep everything the client has told them under protection unless they decide not to represent those clients. Question 2 In the case Ulster v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 1979, presumptions as evidence was used where the defendants refused to the introduction of the guns into evidence since there was no enough prove to connect them with the guns. The trial court canceled the protest, relying on the presumption of custody created by a New York law providing that the existence of a weapon in a vehicle is presumptive confirmation of its unlawful ownership by all people then occupying the automobile, except when inter alia, the weapon is set up upon the individual of one of the occupants (Samaha, 20111). To find guilty a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must confirm the defendant guilty beyond a rational uncertainty thus presumptions should be allowed. As part of this procedure, the defendant is given a chance to present a justification (Ingram, 2011). There are several types of defenses, from I did it but it was self defense or was under influence of illicit stuff to know what I was doing and I did not do it. Some of the defenses that criminal raise include, the defendant did not do which is the most common where they try to avoid punishment by claiming the crime at hand was not committed by them and they have no idea who did (Ingram, 2011) it. Others even go to the lengths of saying they were not near the perimeter of the crime. The defense for I did it but with a good reason is another type of defense where the offender tries to avoid punishment even though there is sufficient evidence that they did the crime in question. Self-defense is a defense normally asserted by people charged with the offense of aggression, such as striking someone, physical attack with a harmful weapon, or slaughter (Ingram, 2011). The defendant admits that they in fact committed the offense, but claims that it was acceptable by the other person's intimidating actions. The main issues in most self-defense cases are: Who was the provoker? Was the defendant's certainty that self-defense was essential and reasonable one? If yes, was the power used by the defendant also logical? The insanity justification is based on the opinion that penalty is justified only if the defendant is competent enough to control their behavior and understanding that what they have done is harmful to others (Ingram, 2011). This is because a number of people suffering from a psychological disorder are not capable of choosing or knowing right from wrong, the insanity argument prevents them from being illegally punished. Though insanity defense is a complex topic many scholars have devoted most of their attention to explain these nuances and come up with decision that will be used to solve cases under such circumstances. Entrapment is another type of defense that occurs when the legislation induces an individual to commit an offense and then tries to penalize the person for committing it. On the other hand, if the jury believes that a suspect was inclined to commit the felony anyway, the offender may be established as guilty even if legislation suggested the crime and assisted the defendant to do the crime. Entrapment defenses are therefore particularly complex for defendants with previous convictions for the similar kind of crime. To conclude presumptions should be used as evidence but they must be concrete enough. Question 3 Judicial notice is the situation where a detail is either so well acknowledged or have good grace demonstrable that official proof of the fact is uncalled for (Zines, 2008). The notice can also be described as the authority for a judge to recognize some matters as particulars which are of ordinary knowledge from sources which guarantee precision or are a matter of bureaucrat record, with no the need for proof establishing the truth. The most general judicially noticed particulars include the landscape of streets, geographic areas and buildings, business customs; periods of time; national; historical events and state, and International Law. The government also upholds laws that award courts the authority to identify certain details in particular situations like municipal utilities a charge must be judicially noticed by all magistrates. Another example of judicial notice is when a commercial motor vehicle is cited for abusing automobiles equipment rules, a trial court have an obligation to take judicial notice of the person in charge subordinate spot if they work for a corporation that owns the motor vehicle. Judicial notice is needed for effective and efficient operation of the court system since court of law is supported on facts that need to be established. But if all the details are to be proved, it would take more months and years to get to the bottom of a simplest of case (Ingram, 2011). Therefore a definite assumptions and recognition of the facts are measured as being ordinary understanding and if it has been collected from the definite sources like government records, court records for timing of nightfall and morning etc. Judicial notice also encourage practicality at trial and in the circumstance of an international criminal. The court may abolish preliminary procedures often essential to offer a sufficient judgment of personal accountability, such as the establishment of conditions and facts. The system of using judicial notice is also effective as its facts of general knowledge are a practice observed by numerous local jurisdictions and international criminal courts in the same way. Using this method, courts take become aware of facts that are unanimously known and consequently beyond reasonable dispute be able to support decisions made or dispute the same (Zines, 2008). This process also enables sped up a case at a certain stage so that there can be sufficient time to take care of other important cases and try at level best to give a fair trial. Another reason why the judicial notice is effective is that it can take place at any stage of the proceedings giving the party an opportunity to be heard at any time that they request. Reference Ingram, J. L. (2011). Criminal Evidence. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Samaha, J. (20111). Criminal Procedure. New York: Cengage Learning. Siegel, L. J. (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York: Cengage Learning. Totten, C. D. (2012). Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional. New York: Cengage Learning. Zines, L. (2008). The High Court and the Constitution. New York: Federation Press. Read More