CJ 2500 MOD 5 DB
Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System
1
The decisions investigators must make involve a great deal of discretion.
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
2
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
Some police officers and criminal investigators are not fully aware of the order in
3
which a trial is conducted because time often prohibits them from attending a
complete trail from beginning to end. Also, witnesses are often sequestered from
the courtroom before and after giving testimony. This very common practice is used
to minimize the possibility that a witness’s testimony might be affected by other
witnesses’ testimony.
The courtroom process begins with the selection and swearing in of a jury. Jury
selection can last a few hours or a few weeks, depending on the selection process
and the nature of the case. The jury panel from whom the jurors in the trial will
eventually be picked is called a venire.
The steps in the trial process include: direct examination, cross-examination,
redirect examination, re-cross examination, the rebuttal, surrebuttal, and closing
arguments.
Evidence can be defined as anything that tends logically to prove or disprove
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
4
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
The rules of evidence are designed primarily to keep a jury from hearing or
seeing improper evidence, and the first rule of evidence is designed to set
parameters on the above definition of evidence.
Proof may be defined as the combination of all those facts—of all the evidence—in
5
determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime.
The pie chart above illustrates how several different pieces of evidence can
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
6
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
The doctrine of judicial notice is an evidentiary shortcut. Judicial notice is designed
7
to speed up the trial and eliminate the necessity of formally proving the truth of a
particular matter when the truth is not in dispute.
Direct Evidence
8
Direct evidence usually is the testimony of witnesses that ties the defendant
directly to the commission of the crime, such as the testimony of an
eyewitness who can positively state that the defendant committed the crime.
Real Evidence
Sometimes referred to as “physical evidence,” real evidence is connected
with the commission of the crime and can be produced in court.
Demonstrative Evidence
Demonstrative, or illustrative, evidence is not identical to real evidence even
though the items introduced are tangible. It consists of maps, diagrams,
sketches, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes, X-rays, and visual tests
and demonstrations produced to assist witnesses in explaining their
testimony.
Circumstantial Evidence
9
It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime solely on circumstantial
evidence. The broad definition of circumstantial evidence encompasses all evidence
other than direct evidence, provided that it logically relates the defendant to the
crime.
Opinion Evidence
The only things on which a nonexpert may give opinion evidence are matters of
description in which fact and opinion are so interwoven that they cannot be
separated without losing most of their probative value. Matters of description in
which a nonexpert may give an opinion include color, size, shape, speed, mental
condition, identity, race, and language.
Demonstration evidence includes items such as:
10
maps
diagrams
sketches
photos
tape recordings
An expert witness is a person who is called to testify in court because of his or her
11
special skills or knowledge. They are permitted to interpret facts and give opinions
about their significance to facilitate jurors’ understanding of complex or technical
matters
The fact that stories tend to be changed when they are repeated makes their
reliability and truthfulness questionable. For this reason, the hearsay rule
12
reliability and truthfulness questionable. For this reason, the hearsay rule
was created. Hearsay is derived from “heard say.”
If the circumstances surrounding the hearsay evidence can ensure a high degree of
trustworthiness and reliability, that evidence is admissible as an exception to the rule in
13
trustworthiness and reliability, that evidence is admissible as an exception to the rule in
order to minimize any injustice.
1. Confessions. A confession is an acknowledgment by a person accused of a
crime that he or she is guilty of that crime. Confessions made out of court falls within the
hearsay rule. For such confessions to be admissible, they must meet the tests of
admissibility and overcome the assumptions of unreliability and untrustworthiness.
2. Admissions. One who makes an admission does not acknowledge all. The
facts surrounding the crime necessary to constitute guilt but does admit to certain facts or
circumstances from which guilt may be inferred by the jury.
3. Spontaneous and Excited Utterances. If one makes a spontaneous or
excited utterance after something startling or unusual has happened, the utterance may be
admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when testified to by one who heard it made.
4. Dying Declarations. A declaration concerning the facts and circumstances
of the fatal injury made by the victim of a homicide is about to die, expects to die, and does
not hope to recover is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
5. Former Testimony. Written or oral testimony in a hearing or trial falls within
the hearsay rule if that testimony is sought to be introduced in a later judicial proceeding.
Defendants and other witnesses have a right to have certain matters of
communication barred from disclosure in court—for example, confidential
14
communication barred from disclosure in court—for example, confidential
communications between husband and wife, confidential communications
between attorney and client, and grand jury proceedings that are confidential
requirements of law are barred. The evidentiary privileges may vary from
state to state.
The investigator must inform the jury of the matters investigated in the case and
15
present this information so that the jury understands the sequence events and their
significance. But the investigator may not offer personal conclusions.
A police officer is not entitled to any more credibility in the courtroom than any other
witness. The officer has an equal responsibility, through presentation, appearance,
demeanor, and the substance of testimony, to persuade the jury to believe the facts
being related.
The successful testimony of the investigator is based n adequate preparation
of the case, familiarity with the rules of evidence and with how juries think
16
of the case, familiarity with the rules of evidence and with how juries think
and react, knowledge of trail processes, and maintenance of roper
appearance and conduct at all times.
The good police witness will, at the very least, understand and appreciate the
fact that juries do not make their determination of guilt or innocence solely on
the substance of testimony and evidence offered.
If civilian clothes are worn, a degree of formality is appropriate. Conservative
clothes are less likely to offend members of the jury than are wild, flashy
outfits, even though neat. Police witnesses should be conscious of their
demeanor from the time they arrive at the courthouse.