Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
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...
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…
Works Cited
Howerton, Eric (2002). Column: ballistic fingerprints faulty. Daily Lobo. http://www.dailylobo.com/media/paper344/news/2002/10/24/Opinion/Column.Ballistic.Fingerprints.Faulty-305497.shtml
Ray Dansby v. State of Arkansas. (1995). CR 94-30. S.W. 2d. http://courts.state.ar.us / opinions/old/CR94-30A.html
Rule: Any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is generally inadmissible as hearsay. (801-802) However, hearsay may be admitted, in a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, if the declarant, while believing the declarant's death to be imminent, made the statement about its cause or circumstances. (804(b)(2). Application: Here, the defense attorney's objection is premised on the fact that the deceased Sam's statements are
41+). Loftus notes that science has found "post-event information" is integrated into what most people have actually experienced because, "when people experience some actual event -- say a crime or an accident -- they often later acquire new information about the event. This new information can contaminate the memory" (Loftus, 2002, March, p. 41+). In addition, many false memories are created, deliberately or by accident, in response to leading questioning
United States. (R.T.C., p. 1217). The third judicial approach focuses on a defendant's constitutional rights. "Some courts have held that a pretrial hypnosis session may be so suggestive that a criminal defendant's due process rights are violated if testimony influenced by the session is admitted. These courts scrutinize hypnotic procedures under the standard for pretrial identifications developed by the United States Supreme Court in Stovall v. Denno." (R.T.C., p.
Crime Scene Evidence Laying the Foundation for Crime Scene Evidence In recent decades, significant advances in forensic technology and communications have revolutionized the art of collecting, sharing and using evidence to prosecute and convict accused criminals. These advances definitely make it easier for law enforcement (police and prosecutors) to put criminals away, but this not at the expense of the accused's constitutional rights to a fair trial. Therefore, courts have established different
This type of evidence includes perception and memory, is subjective, and can be inaccurate. Almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. All persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as witnesses in trials and other legal proceedings, and all persons are also presumed to have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is
Admissibility of Evidence at Trial If the goal for a trial is the search for justice, why should there be rules that limit a juror's ability to render a verdict only to that information gathered in compliance with the Constitution and approved by the judge? Part of the search for justice is making sure that the evidence admitted at trial satisfies the constitutional criteria distinguishing admissible evidence from inadmissible evidence. In large