Evidence in Regards to Whether the Testimony

Evidence

In regards to whether the testimony of the deceased victim can be used as evidence, this seems to be a somewhat grey area. One case in 1995 in Arkansas, however, indicated that the testimony of the deceased victim could be used, provided that it was sworn testimony, and not just something that the victim had said in the presence of witnesses (Dansby v. State, 1995). If there were only witnesses to say that the victim stated the defendant was the guilty party, this would be inadmissible. However, since the deceased was involved in the preliminary hearing before he died, the defendant was present at this hearing, the victim clearly identified the defendant, and the victim also responded to a cross-examination by the defendant's lawyer, it appears that the testimony that this victim gave would certainly be admissible and could therefore be used in an effort to convict the defendant of the crime which he allegedly committed.

The fact that the robberies and murders that were taking place stopped at the arrest of the defendant is not something that can be used as evidence in the defendant's trial. There is one important reason for this -- although it is very unlikely, this could just be a coincidence. In other words, the stopping of the crimes after the arrest of the defendant does not completely prove that the defendant committed the other crimes. Theoretically, the defendant could have simply been a copy-cat that heard about the other robberies and murders and decided to try that method himself. Granted, this is very unlikely, but the law is relatively specific about what can and cannot be admitted as evidence in a trial. It would hold much more weight in convicting the defendant if the fact that the robberies and murders stopped could be brought to light, but there is insufficient evidence to the fact that the defendant did indeed commit these other crimes, since there were no witnesses, fingerprints, etc., at the other crimes. There is nothing to link the defendant to the other crimes other than speculation, which is not something that can be used in a case like this. This type of case must avoid speculation and instead simply rely on the facts that are available and can be proven.

3. The finding of "ballistic fingerprints" or what type of gun was used is also not something that will be admissible as evidence. Even if it can be determined what kind of gun was used, there is no weapon that has been found for the crimes, and there is no proof that the gun that was used belonged to the defendant. Each gun leaves a unique pattern when it is fired that trained individuals can use to determine what gun fired a particular bullet, but without the weapon being located, there is no actual way to determine whether that particular gun was the one that was used. Because of this, there is no logical way to link the ballistic fingerprints from the other crimes to the defendant for this particular crime. Even if the same gun was used for the last crime, there is still no definitive way to prove that the same exact gun, used by the same person (the defendant) was used at the other robberies and murders that took place (Howerton, 2002). While there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, there is no concrete evidence, and this concrete evidence is what is really needed to prove that the defendant committed the other crimes that seem to be related. A pattern of crimes is not enough to convict the defendant of all of them, especially with no witnesses available and no weapon located. If the weapon could be found, then the ballistic fingerprints would be much more valuable to those that are attempting to prosecute the defendant.