Federal Rules of Evidence - Essay Example

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Before embarking upon the case under study, it would be advisable to define the term evidence. The English word “evidence” has been extracted from the Latin “evidere”, which stands for describing or explaining each and everything, related to an event or incident, in a lucid manner along with the details regarding some special occurrence. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided.”1. Evidence maintains great significance in legal prosecution, particularly in the law of criminal procedure. It is considered as the most imperative magnitude to judge and assess the validity and authenticity of an incident, an offence or a felony. The statutes of law are devised and implemented to control crimes by announcing penalty and punishment to the culprit as well as protecting the life, honour, possessions and rights of the innocent citizens. Since no law declares an accused as offender without having sound proof of his offence; and evidence is the only technique to prove or disapprove any fact the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation. Hence, evidence is the tool, which attests the validity of the offence. Evidence includes: 1. All statements, which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence. 2. All documents produced for the inspection of the court, such documents are called documentary evidence. Q 1: In an offence like theft, stealing and burglary, no one is the eyewitness of the felony. Same is the situation in the case under study, where Edna is eyewitness of the presence of a person in her bedroom, where the burglary had been committed at Edna’s house on the night of 21 December. Edna blames Alan as the culprit on the following grounds: She had found a man in her bedroom on the night of 21 December She had lost the amount £50 from her handbag the same night, which was stolen by the man present that night in her bedroom. The videotape also proves the presence of a person in Edna’s bedroom. The man committing burglary in Edna’s bedroom has the same scar mark as Alan’s. In addition, the person has also left an ear print on window, which looks like the ear print of Alan; it is therefore he has been accused as the same offender, who committed burglary in Edna’s house. The law of evidence allows eyewitness [es] present both oral and documentary evidence. The oral statement made by Edna does not carry weight because she is unable to provide a detailed description of the burglar. Moreover, since she has presented documentary evidence, where only one scar mark describes the identity of the accused. The provisions of the law of Evidence allow an accused to make necessary changes in his appearance. In its words: Hence, provisions of Evidence Law allocate Edna the position of both complainant and the witness of the presence of the offender in her bedroom during the procedure. In the light of the points above-mentioned, Law of Evidence declares her witness admissible, though mere one scar mark does not view the evidence as the sufficient one for declaring Alan as the culprit of burglary and announcing sentence to him. Thus, the accused, Alan, would be given the benefit of doubt at the court of law. Alan has also presented imperative evidence of Edna’s malice against him, before the burglary took place, which is sufficient to dismiss and nullify the evidence made by Edna against Alan, according to the Law of Evidence, which states: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” 2 In the same way, the evidence presented by Tyrone, a 75 years old man and the witness of presence of a man walking close to Edna’s house on the same night and time of the incident, also maintains some validity. His witness raises the following points: Since Tyrone is a rational old man, and had seen a person walking near Edna’s house, law enables him present his evidence on the facts in issue according to the provisions of the Law of Evidence, which states: “All persons shall be competent to testify under the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of same kind.” 3 But due to the old age, Tyrone is unable to identify the accused. In addition, relying upon the evidence of an old man, who had seen the accused from a long distance late at night and under poor light, is not sound proof of the description of the offender. Hence, precise description of the accused through an old man from safe distance and under improper lighting serves as an inadequate and insufficient evidence against the accused i.e. Alan. Moreover, Tyrone is not able of identifying Alan in the documentary evidence i.e. videotape, which is sufficient to bestow the benefit of doubt upon the accused. It is therefore, the court cannot declare his evidence as admissible in the light of the provisions of law. Q 2 The Law of Evidence invites the opinion of an expert for proving or disapproving the validity of the offence. The opinion of an expert can be both oral and documentary, though it is generally based on some mark, fingerprints, ear-prints, documentation, voice and others. The evidence of the expert has been defined in the law in these words: “When the court has to form an opinion on a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impression, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or in question as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.” 4 Hence, the opinion of an expert is admissible as an evidence for the support of the court, which could be accepted or rejected on the discretion of the court. a) In the case above-mentioned, the solicitors seek the opinion of a mathematician, called Dr. Fozia. Dr. Fozia has been closely involved in a European research project to evaluate ear-print evidence. She will refer to a number of papers published by colleagues involved in the research project and state that there is a close match between Alan’s ear-print and the ear-print found on a side window of Edna’s house. The prosecution has the right to call Dr. Fozia at the court for giving her opinion, according to the provision of the Law of Evidence. “Use of expert witness testimony in the prosecution of domestic violence can assist the Crown Prosecution Service in fulfilling its obligation to prosecute domestic violence crimes effectively.” 5 The prosecution can get the opinion of an expert, though it is not bound to act upon the advice of the expert. Rather, the prosecution has every right to accept, reject or put aside the opinion made by the expert. Dhaka High Court has declared the same in these words: “Expert opinion is relevant and admissible merely to aid the court in forming its opinion. The court can come to its own conclusion independently from the expert’s opinion.” 6 b) The Law of Evidence mere looks for the opinion of an expert; it has not been mentioned that a person working in the company of some experts can provide an aid to the prosecution in the form of an opinion. The association with an expert or the group or team of experts cannot declare some other person as the expert. For example, serving at a doctor’s clinic does not make a clerk or manager as the expert. In the same way, no clerk or assistant can plead before the court of law without having the licence issued by the authorities regarding permitting him to plead at the court. Though, many a times, associates, assistants, advisors, colleagues and staff members can give a highly valuable statement and the piece of advice, yet such statement or opinion cannot be taken as the expertise from a professional. The statutes of law only seek aid from the professional expert, rather giving everyone the right to produce suggestions and aids before the prosecution. In the case above-mentioned, the solicitor demands Dr. Fozia’s aid, because she has prepared research papers on the assessment of validity of the ear prints. But preparation of research papers does not prove her an expert of ear print. She is mere a scholar of the knowledge relevant to ear prints, but cannot be declared as the expert of ear prints in its crude sense. It is therefore, neither Dr. Fozia has any right to submit her opinion, nor she can rely upon the documents prepared and drafted by her colleagues. Q 3 The accused Alan has taken the plea that the presence of his ear-print on the side window of Edna’s house was produced while doing an odd job at the complainant’s house few days before the burglary took place in Edna’s house. The very statement produced before the prosecution makes Alan suspect due to the very fact that: Alan has never mentioned doing of any odd job at Edna’s house at the police station, but he feels the need for describing the very fact before the prosecution. The existence of his ear-print on the window for many days also proves the very fact that he has not only visited Edna’s house, but is also familiar with the construction of doors and windows at her house. He is also acquainted with the very reality that his ear-print could be found on the window even many days have gone when he had visited her house for some odd job. Hence, his later statement serves as the sort of some confession of his crime. The latter statement issued by the accused in the presence of the prosecution could be considered as the learnt one from the solicitor. So, it may lose its validity. But it is the fact beyond doubt that such type of statement may put his innocence in jeopardy in the eyes of the prosecution, according to the provisions of the Law of Evidence. Since the prosecution finds some clues of undue influence from the solicitor or others, in the later statement made by the accused, the prosecution may nullify it altogether according to the provision of Section 37, which states: But it is also the reality that his so called forgetfulness of mentioning of his visit to the Edna’s house may prove him suspect and his own statement can serve as the valid evidence of his offence of burglary committed at Edna’s house on December 21 at night. Hence, the prosecution can declare him as responsible for concealing the facts from them, and can announce sentence in the verdict issued by the prosecution by the end of the hearing. b) Alan can take the sound plea that his later statement is based on truth, and it was the outcome of the voice of his clear conscience, where he had been forbidden by the solicitor or some other person, to disclose the facts “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.” 7 e FOOTNOTES: 1. Federal Rules of Evidence: Section 402 (Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence) 2. Rule 403 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule403 3. Law of Evidence (Section 3) 4. Law of Evidence (Section 59) 5. www.cps.gov.uk 6. PLD 1966 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GIBBS, Graham. Teaching students to learn: a student-centred approach. Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1981. As Footnote: G. Gibbs, Teaching students to learn, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1981, p. 280. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence Read More