Parties in Civil or Criminal Case Evidence - Research Paper Example

Evidence The parties in either civil or criminal case must disclose their evidence as broadly as possible, to the other side of the case, and especially the disclosure of any exculpatory evidence (Federal Judicial Center, 27).The broad disclosure covers even the disclosure of confidential informants, like in this case, the “Eye” officer. According to Weingarten, Gene’s: "The Police Couldn't Hide Their Lying Eyes” case, it would have certainly not be possible to understand that the “Eye” police officer was lying in his testimony, until the fine details were given regarding the clothing and the item that the defendant was described to have been possessing (Weingarten, n.d.). While the $10 note serial number that was used by the undercover police officer had matched the one that the defendant was found possessing in his pocket after the drug was purchased, the discrepancy emanated from the description of the defendant by the “Eye” officer, who gave details such as the defendant being seen wearing a V-necked T-shirt, with a key on his chain and holding a ginger dale bottle (Weingarten, n.d.). The “Eye” officer further alleged to have seen the defendant from a distance of 50 to 60 feet, which in reality turned out to be 172 feet distance from the investigations that were later carried out (Weingarten, n.d.). Thus, it is the full disclosure of the evidence from the prosecution side, which allowed the defending side to realize the discrepancy and thus the consequent deceitfulness of the police officer. The purpose of broad disclosure is to help the defense and the prosecution side to prepare well for the case. Especially, broad disclosure of the evidence held by the prosecution is required, to avoid surprises to the defense, during the trial (Ferdico, 72). Additionally, broad disclosure of evidence is necessary because; it is through the broad disclosure of the evidence, that any disparity and discrepancy can be identified, which then would serve to tell whether either side of the case is being genuine and truthful, or otherwise (Federal Judicial Center, 33). The broad disclosure is also essential, since it allows for the court to have both incriminating and exculpatory information, which then allows it to determine the guilt or otherwise of the defendant. Thus, it is through broad disclosure that a balanced case is enhanced, which then serves to identify the truth, and inform the necessary action by the courts. Various penalties have been set out for failing to give the broad disclosure of evidence, especially the exculpatory evidence, which could help the court determine that the defendant was not guilty, and thus set him/her free. The first penalty is that; the court may order the party that did not make the necessary disclosure to do it at a specific time, place and manner (Gardner and Terry, 40). The court may also penalize the party that did not make the full disclosure, through allowing the opposing party some more time to go through the newly disclosed evidence, so that the party can prepare well for the trial. Thus, the party that failed to disclose evidence appropriately is punished through having the case being deferred to a later date (Keane and Paul, 63). Finally, the biggest and most punishing penalty that the party that failed to disclose appropriately might get is that, it may be prevented to use the evidence that it did not disclose to the opposing party in the case (Khan, 12). This means that; no matter how useful and convincing the evidence might be, the party will not take the advantage of such information to prove their case. However, there is some evidence that is exempted from disclosure, which is provided under the exclusionary rule of evidence discovery. Under this rule, it is provided that; the work product of the government shall not be disclosed (Gardner and Terry, 44). This rule provides that any documents that have been made by the government in the course of the investigation or prosecution of the case shall remain confidential, and thus shall not be disclosed. Additionally, the exclusionary rule provides that statements made by prospective witnesses shall not be disclosed before the trial (Khan, 21). The exclusionary rule is applied for various reasons. First, it is applied to protect the identity of the witnesses who will be testifying in the case. Secondly, it is meant to protect the confidentiality of government information, as well as the theories and thoughts applied in the investigation process. This is because, disclosing such statements would amount to disclosing the identity of the prospective witness before the trial, which obviously endangers them, or puts the witness at the risk of being compromised or influenced to adjust or modify the witness evidence (Keane and Paul, 70).This is meant to protect the theories and process thoughts of the government, which serves it in the process of investigating crimes. The disclosure of such information jeopardizes the ability of the government to undertake its crime investigation mandates (Gardner and Terry, 42). The application of the exclusionary rule is justified, since it serves to ensure that the government’s ability to undertake criminal investigations is not compromised, since its thought and theory processes are not exposed in the trial process, which would give the criminals and the prospective criminals an upper hand in evading being caught in the investigation process (Khan, 13). The other justification for the application of the exclusionary rule is that; it helps to protect the prospective witnesses for the case, from being compromised, or even from putting their lives in danger. Nevertheless, the exclusionary rule hinders the pursuit of truth in criminal cases. This is because; it places the defense side at a disadvantage, since the defense is not able to understand how the incriminating evidence for the defendant was arrived at. Understanding the process by which the defendant was incriminated is essential, since it helps to determine the accuracy of the investigations, and thus determines any discrepancy that could have occurred in the suspect identification process (Federal Judicial Center, 35). For example, in the Weingarten, Gene’s: "The Police Couldn't Hide Their Lying Eyes” case, the evidence presented put the defendant at an absolute guilty position, because it had been determined that the $10 note serial number that the police officer used to purchase the drug matched the note that was found in the pocket of the defendant after he was arrested (Weingarten, n.d.). However, it is only through the disclosure of the investigation process, that a discrepancy in the description of the defendant, and the distance from where he was operating was noted. The investigation process posed a distance of between 50-60 feet, while the actual distance was 172 feet (Weingarten, n.d.). Thus, if the investigation process was not disclosed, then, it would not have been able to determine the discrepancy in the prosecution evidence, meaning that the defendant would have been convicted unfairly. It is through this exemplification, that it can be seen that exclusionary rule hinders the pursuit of truth in criminal cases, by placing the defense at a disadvantage, since they may not understand how the incriminating evidence was finally arrived at. The effective, alternative means of protecting constitutional rights of the defendant is to make the exclusionary rule inoperable, regarding the issue of investigation theory disclosure. This way, it will be possible for the defense to understand how the incriminating evidence for the defendant was arrived at, and thus enable them to assess its accuracy in incriminating the defendant. This way, the investigation process becomes a part of the normal evidence disclosure procedure, allowing the defense to be fully informed, as does the prosecution. This would serve the justice right, by enhancing the constitutional right of the defendant; the right to a fair trial (Keane and Paul, 77). Works Cited Federal Judicial Center. (1975). Federal rules of evidence for United States courts and magistrates: approved January 2, 1975, effective July 1, 1975. St. Paul, Minn, West Pub. Co. Ferdico, John. Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Gardner, Thomas J, and Terry M. Anderson. Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Keane, Adrian, and Paul McKeown. The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Khan, Karim A. A, Caroline Buisman, and Christopher Gosnell. Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Weingarten, Gene’s: The Police Couldn't Hide Their Lying Eyes. Washington post. Read More