What Would Constitute Corroborating Evidence

Forensic evidence can disprove an alibi. Forensic evidence can tell what happened at a crime scene. Forensic evidence can link a person to a crime or a place. Forensic evidence cannot lie or make up stories unless handled incorrectly. Thus evidence can also be the deciding factor in some cases.

Brenton Butler who was a minor, was presented in a show-up without his knowledge, identified and immediately arrested on the grounds of that identification. While in the interrogation room, Butler was questioned alone without an adult in the room and was not given a lawyer after he was “promised” one by detective Williams questioning him. Last but most definitely not least we are faced with the fact that Brenton was taken to the woods and abused by Detective Glover in an attempt to illicit a

There were many different issues that were present during the investigation to the Tim Bosma murder. For one the length of the investigation, and the amount of forensic evidence that was collected, and analyzed. The HPS explained to the court the evidence collected from Bosma truck. They took sixty-four blood swabs in and around the truck; furthermore, they also took 23 fingerprints from the truck on 20 different items with two of them matching to Millard (Clairmont, 2016). A cut was made in a green tarp to remove the section with blood stains on it, as well soil and vegetation samples were taken from the tires (Clairmont, 2016). They also collected shards of glass from a broken passenger window. This is just an example of the amount of evidence that was collected from just the truck in the Bosma murder investigation. Another

When Detective Mike Baskin arrived at the scene, he too gave no thought to fingerprints or any other physical evidence. His first priority was to find the girl and to find the light-colored pickup truck. Those who were present at the scene told him about the happenings, he did not by himself investigate. Furthermore, he did not investigate Haraway’s car, which was parked at the crime scene. They did acknowledge that it was her car (manager pointed this out), but no one thought of looking for any physical evidence. Also, even Detective Baskin did not bother to check what the manager threw away. All the information, – such as how much money was stolen, her purse and her car, everything was told to Detective Baskin, he did not bother to check by himself. In the end, all the law enforcement officers left the crime scene without securing it and allowed the manager to lock up the store.

With knowing that the suspect had already prior run-ins with the law and that they were trying to run from officer's it gives an understanding that getting them into custody is of greater need since they have a firearm. Since the suspect was in a public area with a firearm the situation

Officer Jimenez placed Barkes in handcufss and read him his Miranda Warning. Barkes told Officer Jimenez he understood the Miranda Warning. Barkes admitted to Officer Jimenez arguing with Johnson thorough the door earlier that night. Barkes also told Officer Jimenez that during the arguments he kicked in the door without Johnson consent. Barkes told Officer Jimenez that he left after he and Johnson got belligerent but did not give further

Most of the evidence gathered in this case seems to be circumstantial. There is no direct evidence, which is ultimately why the charges were dismissed against Pape and Smith, along with the legal issues during the proceedings. The most important piece of evidence has to be the DNA evidence and the phone records. DNA evidence was found connecting Smith to the scene. A business card was near a wheelbarrow that Becky, one of the victims, was found dead in that had DNA matching Smith’s. Also, the business card was for a Catholic ministry, a church Pape’s mother volunteered at. This could not have been a coincidence because the likelihood of a random match is very slim. This DNA evidence was the only forensic evidence found at the time of the

Acts such as intentionally luring 15 year old Brenton Butler into a fairly dark forest with intentions of physically harming him, forcefully allowing Brenton to sign a piece of paper proving that he was guilty, exposing that there had been missed evidence from the crime scene and questioning them about the lack of investigating that they had done were some of the many ways he battled the case. Attorney McGinness also strategically pointed out Officer Glover’s past by exposing his love for football and “liking to hit them hard.” Lastly Mr. McGinness also deliberately refused to address Officer Darnell and Officer Glover by their titles “detective and officer”. By doing this he somewhat diminished their social status and disrespected their positions. As he stated “I do not find them to be honorable

Trooper Williams never communicated his arrest intentions to the defendants. Therefore a police officers unarticulated decision has no bearing on the defendants being “in custody” at the time of questioning.

Prior to our arrival, Officer L. Mercado #9610, responded to the location and spoke with the Witness, later identified as William Anderson. Anderson directed Officer Mercado to where the Suspect was sitting. Upon our arrival, Officer Mercado, Officer Acosta and I approached Zacarias-Esteban and detained him without incident. Officer Acosta placed Zacarias-Esteban into handcuffs and double locked the cuffs.

What raised questions later and solved during his appeal case is that despite his clear innocence during the initial interrogations, is what compelled him to confess to his crimes? According to the 5th Amendment, every US citizen has a right against self-incrimination (Petrocelli, 2010). The police who questioned Miranda were subject to this violation as the evidence was deemed to have been coerced and not self-inflicted. Additionally, the confession stated that Miranda was fully aware of his confession and that it would be used against him in the court of law against him. This was also questioned as there was no verbal proof of the police ever informing Miranda of

It is a series of facts that require reasoning and experience (Circumstantial evidence, 2008). The members of the court who are presenting circumstantial evidence to the jury argues that the series of facts that they are presenting resemble the facts proven so closely that they are just inferred to be truth and that is what the jury must decide (Circumstantial evidence, 2008). For example, if James sees William shoot Emily that’s direct evidence, but if James see William and Emily go into another room together and hears William say that he was going to shoot Emily, and then hears a gun shot and William comes out the room holding a gun and Emily is dead, James’ testimony would be circumstantial

I believe DNA evidence is sufficient enough to convict someone without corroborative evidence. The reason I support this is because present DNA analysis allows a tissue sample to be identified with a single individual. This method has been used to solve crimes, establish paternity, and identify victims of war or large-scale disaster. DNA carries genetic information in a sequence of nitrogenous bases. DNA probes are used to identify the unique sequences in each person’s DNA. A DNA probe is made up of a synthetic sequence of DNA bases that is complementary to a small portion of the DNA strand. There are many accurate tests that are run when it comes to identifying a victim or potential criminal. DNA evidence is considered to be extremely reliable.

A6. The first case, I had a client who was convinced that the government was spying on him. Initially, I took the case assuming that the client constitutional rights were infringed. However, as I started to communicate with the client more I realized that the client I was dealing with had mental issues and there was no basis to his claim. Instead of communicating those thoughts with him, I told him as I looked further

The collection, custody and preservation of forensic evidence is a vital aspect of evidence integrity, without proper adherence to these procedures, crucial evidence that could potentially have great impact on a court case could be rendered useless. In the case of criminal proceedings, a skilled defence lawyer will look to scrutinise every step taken by forensic practitioners’ involved within the case in regards to the continuity of the evidence, in doing this they attempt to undermine the practitioner’s ability to properly carry out strict evidence collection, protection and preservation procedures and also look to find fault in the techniques they used to carry out these procedures.