WK1 DISCUSSION QUESTION - CRIME SCENE RATIONALE

Success50

WK1CHAPTER3CriminalInvestigationREADINGONLY.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >WK1 DISCUSSION QUESTION - CRIME SCENE RATIONALE

The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

Gary w. Green/Orlando sentinel/MCT

OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you will be able to:

• Discuss the investigation of the death of Stanley van Wagner. Identify the most significant evidence in the case and the reasons why Amy Van Wagner was found guilty in the trial.

• Explain the various levels or standards of proof.

• Discuss the reasons for the hearsay rule and the exceptions to it.

• Compare direct evidence with indirect evidence and give an example of each.

• Compare the role of lay witnesses with that of expert witnesses.

• Differentiate between judicial evidence and extrajudicial evidence and between exculpatory evidence and inculpatory evidence.

• Identify the various forms of circumstantial evidence.

• Provide examples of corpus delicti evidence, corroborative evidence, cumulative evidence, associative evidence, identification evidence, and behavioral evidence.

• Define testimonial evidence, real evidence, documentary evidence, and demonstrative evidence.

From the CASE FILE The Murder of Stanley van Wagner

Sometime on or around Friday, May 15, 2015, Stanley van Wagner was murdered. He was shot multiple times in his home office. He was shot from the back through his neck and in his shoulder. His body was found on Sunday, May 17, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the basement of his house in a locked supply room by his wife, Amy. Stanley's body was covered with a tarp. Next to his body was his computer, which had been struck by a bullet, and a pillow that also had a bullet hole through it. There were two shell casings on the floor of Stanley's office, a bloodstain on the carpet, and a bullet hole in the drywall of one of the walls. Two .380 caliber bullets were recovered. There was a gun safe in the office from which some, but not all, of the guns were missing. An empty leather handgun holster was found near the safe. Amy had a concealed carry permit. Her gun was a .380 caliber handgun. These were the undisputed facts of the case.

Based on the evidence in the case, Amy was arrested for the murder of her husband. All the evidence against her was circumstantial. The inculpatory evidence that led to Amy being identified as the killer consisted of the following:

• On Friday morning, May 15, Stanley's cell phone had been placed/tracked near the cell tower in the city where Amy worked, which was a different city than the one in which the couple lived. From this location,

Stanley's coworker received a text from Stanley's phone indicating he was not feeling well and would not be at work. It was one of the few times in thirty years Stanley had called out sick. The cell phone location information was obtained from cell phone provider records; Stanley's cell phone was never found.

• Stanley had a rug in his office that was displayed but never placed on the floor. When investigators arrived at the scene after Stanley's body had been discovered, the rug was on the floor. Under the rug was a bloodstain. on the morning of May 15, while Amy was at work, she had used her phone to text her sixteen-year-old son, who was at home in bed. In the text she asked her son if he saw the rug on the floor and if he thought it looked good. In another text to her son sent around the same time, she stated there was no need to worry about Stanley, that he would not be home after work. (The son was at home that morning because earlier in the week he had been expelled from school, and Stanley was not happy about it.)

• Amy had a concealed carry gun permit, and her gun was a .380 caliber handgun. on occasion, she and Stanley had conducted target practice at a friend's house. Investigators linked .380 caliber shell casings recovered from the friend's house to the shell casings found on Stanley's office floor. The .380 caliber handgun was never recovered.

• Guns missing from the gun safe in Stanley's office were found by investigators in a pond near the couple's house.

• On May 15 Amy had performed a Google search for "rental carpet cleaner" on her work computer using the in-private browser function.

• Amy had previously taken money out of Stanley's checking account without his permission by writing checks to "cash" and forging Stanley's signature. Stanley had threated to divorce Amy because of this.

• Between May 15 and May 18, Amy had made several cash withdrawals from Stanley's checking account using his ATM card.

• The medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of the body and an expert witness stated that Stanley was most likely killed on May 15 or May 16. The computer found next to Stanley's body that was stuck by a bullet had its clock stop at 5:30 a.m. on Friday, May 15.

Along with this inculpatory evidence, however, exculpatory evidence also existed that could lead one to believe Amy was not the perpetrator:

• Like every other day, on Friday, May 15, Amy had gone to work. She also went to the Department

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

of Motor Vehicles and completed other normal activities. coworkers testified Amy had acted normally at work that day. On Saturday she had posted on Facebook that if anyone saw Stanley they should tell him to come home. On that day she also went to an out-of-town graduation party and bought and planted flowers at home.

• There were no fingerprints or DNA on the computer found next to Stanley's body, and no DNA from Amy on the tarp. There were no fibers on the steps from the tarp. There was no physical evidence that linked Amy to the murder.

• A witness, a neighbor, reported with confidence that she had seen and spoken with Stanley on Friday afternoon. Another witness stated she had seen Stanley on Saturday.

• Witnesses testified that Stanley and Amy appeared to be a happy couple and that Amy killing her husband was incomprehensible.

• The couple's son, who was home in bed on Friday, May 15, reported and later testified that he did not hear any gunshots in the house that morning.

In early 2017 the case went to trial. Amy van Wagner did not testify. The jury deliberated for six hours before finding Amy guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and hiding a corpse.

case Considerations and Points for Discussion

1. Do you agree with the police, prosecutor, and jury that Amy van Wagner killed her husband? Based on the evidence, what do you think happened? What do you think was a likely motive?

2. If Amy killed her husband, what is the most significant unanswered question associated with this case? Explain.

3. If Amy killed her husband, what were the most significant mistakes she made that led to her identification and conviction as the killer? Explain.

• • • The Basics of Criminal Evidence Broadly defined, criminal evidence is any crime-related information on which an investigator can base a decision or make a determination. It consists of supposed facts and knowledge that relate to a particular crime or perpetrator. Evidence is the product of investigative activities; investiga tive activities are performed to discover and collect evidence. In turn, evidence is used to establish proof that a crime was committed and that a particular person committed that crime.

JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL EVIDENCE Judicial evidence: A basic and fundamental distinction can be made between judicial evidence and extra judi

cial evidence. Judicial evidence is evidence that is admissible in court and that meets the rules of evidence. As such, it is often referred to as admissible evidence. In the case discussed

Evidence that meets the rules of evidence and is admissible in court.

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

earlier, the cell phone records, the results of the autopsy, the testimony about time of death, and the ballistics evidence are all examples of judicial evidence.

Extrajudicial evidence is any information on which an investigative decision can be based but that is not allowed in court proceedings. It is often referred to as inadmissible evidence. An example of extra judicial evidence may be the results of a polygraph examination taken by a suspect. It is certainly not unreasonable that investigators would consider the results of a polygraph examination when judging whether a particular person committed the crime in question. At the same time, however, this "evidence" would not be allowed by a judge to be introduced into court proceedings; it would not meet the rules of evidence. Although such evidence may not be admissible in court, though, it can still be quite useful.

EXCULPATORY AND INCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Another basic but important distinction can be made between exculpatory evidence and inculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to exclude or eliminate someone from consideration as the perpetrator. As discussed in the earlier case, if a witness saw Stanley alive on Saturday, it would tend to call into question the value of the cell phone location and Google search made on Friday as evidence of the murder, which would tend to exclude Amy as the killer. lnculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to include or incrim inate a person as the perpetrator. For example, the fact that Stanley was shot with the .380 caliber handgun that belonged to Amy would tend to incriminate Amy. Throughout the course of any investigation, investigators will likely uncover both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in relation to a particular suspect. It is a legal requirement that the police and prosecutor share not only the inculpatory evidence but also the exculpatory evidence with the defendant's attorney through the discovery process.

STANDARDS OF PROOF

Evidence is used to establish proof that a crime was committed or that a particular person committed that crime. To prove something (e.g., that Amy killed Stanley) is to eliminate uncer tainty or some degree of uncertainty regarding the truthfulness of the conclusion. Proof is not a one-dimensional phenomenon; there are various levels, or standards of proof (see Table 3.1). For example, as discussed in more detail later, the police often need enough evidence to estab lish probable cause to justify a search or an arrest. Probable cause, then, is a standard of proof. Probable cause exists when it is more likely than not that a particular circumstance exists; generally speaking, the degree of certainty is greater than 50 percent. Probable cause is the standard of proof of most direct concern and relevance to investigators in solving crimes.

Another standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed in a trial to conclude that the defendant is guilty of the crime. With this level of proof, a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) may have a doubt about the defendant's guilt, but this doubt cannot be meaningful or significant. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof of most direct consequence to prosecutors, who have as their responsibility presenting evidence in court to obtain a conviction.

A third level of proof is reasonable suspicion. In order for police to legally stop and frisk a person, the police have to have a reasonable suspicion about that person's involvement in or association with a criminal act.

A fourth major level of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evi dence is the degree of certainty needed to prove and win a civil case. It is essentially the equivalent of probable cause but applies only to civil matters.

It is important to understand that all levels of proof are subjective in nature. The determina tion of what constitutes proof depends on the judgments of people. As a result, what consti tutes probable cause for one judge may not constitute probable cause for another. One jury may find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but another may find reasonable doubt. The weight and value of evidence in establishing proof are an individual determination.

Extrajudicial evidence: Any information upon which an investigative decision can be based but the evidence is not allowed in court.

Exculpatory evidence: Evidence that tends to exclude a person as the perpetrator.

lnculpatory evidence: Evidence that tends to include a person as the perpetrator.

Proof: Proof is certainty that a particular fact or circumstance is true.

Standards of proof: Different levels or degrees by which uncertainty about a fact can be eliminated.

Probable cause: A standard of proof necessary to justify most searches and to make an arrest.

Beyond a reasonable doubt: A standard of proof necessary to obtain the conviction of a defendant at trial.

Reasonable suspicion: A standard of proof necessary for the police to stop and frisk a person.

Preponderance of the evidence: A standard of proof relevant in civil law and trials.

Direct evidence: Evidence that directly demonstrates a fact; there is no need for inferences or presumptions.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Standards of Proof in Criminal Matters

Reasonable suspicion

Probable cause

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Is there reason to believe that a particular circumstance exists?

Is it more likely than not that a particular circumstance exists?

Is the doubt about the defendant's guilt meaningful or significant?

To stop and frisk

To make an arrest To conduct a search

To obtain a conviction

THE MEANING AND NATURE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Probable cause stems directly from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and constitutes a critical ingredient needed to justify a legal search, seizure, or arrest. In gen eral, if probable cause does not exist to conduct a search or to make an arrest, any evi dence collected as a result of that search is not admissible in court, nor is that arrest considered valid. Probable cause is critical indeed and therefore is discussed in more detail here.

According to the decision in Brinegar v. United States (1949), probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they had reason ably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." This is known as the "man of reasonable caution" standard or the "reasonable person" standard. In United States v. Ortiz (1975), the court ruled police officers can legitimately draw on their experi ence and training in determining whether probable cause exists in a particular situation. As a result, what might look like innocent activity to the "reasonable person" may indeed be sufficient to establish probable cause for a police officer.

In Aguilar v. Texas (1964), the court established a two-pronged test to determine probable cause when information is given to the police by an informant. The two prongs were (1) the reliability of the informant and (2) the reliability of the informant's information. This is particularly relevant when the police obtain information from a person who has been engaged in criminal activity and has low credibility. The Aguilar two-pronged test was abandoned with Illinois v. Gates (1983) when the court ruled that the "totality of the cir cumstances" must be considered in establishing probable cause. So in the case of Gates, not only should the informant's tip be considered in determining probable cause, but so too should the corroborating information from other independent police sources.

• • Types of Evidence Various types of evidence can be used to establish proof. All evidence can be classified as being either direct or indirect, and all evidence can be classified as either testimonial, real, demonstra tive, or documentary. All of these types of evidence are discussed in the following subsections.

DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT EVIDENCE

Direct evidence refers to crime-related information that immediately demonstrates the exis tence of a fact in question. As such, no inferences or presumptions are needed to draw the associated conclusion. Confessions from perpetrators and identifications from eyewitnesses are good examples of direct evidence of guilt (see Case in Point 3.1).

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentat ion of Ev idence in Criminal Investigations 41

CASE in POINT 3· 1 "All This Was Planned When the First Shot Was Fired"

The following report was written by · Detective Michael

sarenac of the Milwaukee Police Department. It has been

edited for length and clarity.

Background

On Sunday, April 24, 2016, the Milwaukee Police Department

responded to the Tandji convenience store in the City of Milwaukee regarding an injured person. A citizen contacted police after locating a person laying in the store. Upon offi cer's arrival they located the decedent laying on the floor

with an apparent gunshot wound to his head. Medical per

sonnel had responded and determined that any resuscitation

efforts were fruitless. The decedent, identified as Chaabane Tandji, male, black, 01/01/1975, was pronounced dead by the Milwaukee County medical examiner's office. An autopsy

performed by that office the following day determined a bul let travelled from the back to the front of Mr. Tandji's skull and ruled his death a homicide.

Detectives reviewed store video and obseNed that shortly after 11 p.m. the previous evening a black male and a black

female were allowed entry into the store by the victim after store hours. At one point the victim removes a handgun and shows it to the male. The male begins walking around the store

pointing the handgun in different directions. At one point the

male is facing the back of the victim. Video shows this male

extending his arm when about 8 to 10 feet behind the victim. The victim falls to the floor. This male then walks in front of the victim and again extends his arm and appears to fire a second time into the victim. The male then checks the pockets of the victim and, as this is occurring, the female is seen in the cashier area removing items including cigarettes. Both the male and

female then exit the store, leaving the victim on the floor.

Detectives showed a portion of the video to the decedent's girlfriend, Patricia Long, where she identified both persons in

the video with the decedent as "Trill" and his girlfriend "Shay." "Trill" is Terrence Hutchinson. "Shay" is Shannon Carson-Quinn. Both were arrested without incident at 3357 B N. 2nd St.

In-custody Mirandized interview of Shannon P. Carson-Quinn on 4-24-16

Quinn stated that about one week ago, she and her boy friend, Terrence M. Hutchinson (08-13-88), planned to rob

and kill the previous owner of the store, who they called

"Sabu." Carson-Quinn stated they planned to do this because

Sabu got $15,000 to $20,000 from the sale of the store. They

planned on killing him so there were no witnesses. Carson

Quinn stated that on 04-23-16, she and Hutchinson went to

the store and Sabu was working. Carson-Quinn stated that

they spoke with sabu and planned to meet him back at the

store at 11 :30 p.m. Carson-Quinn stated that they would reg ularly hang out at the store with Sabu after it closed because Sabu was basically living at the store.

Carson-Quinn stated that she and Hutchinson arrived at the

store at about 11:30 p.m. and Sabu let them in. Carson-Quinn

stated that she warmed up some food and ate and they watched

a movie. Carson-Quinn stated that on 04-24-16 at about 1 :00 a.m., Sabu stated that he was tired and she and Hutchinson

began to gather their things. She then heard Hutchinson ask Sabu to see "the baby," meaning sabu's gun that he carried in a holster in his pocket. Carson-Quinn stated that she did

not see Sabu give Hutchinson the gun, but Hutchinson walked

past her with a gun in his hand. Carson-Quinn stated that as Hutchinson walked past her, he gave her a look like go up front and she knew it was about to happen. Hutchinson stated that she walked to the front of the store and she then heard two

gunshots. Carson-Quinn stated that she then grabbed about

six or seven packs of Newport 100's cigarettes and then went

to the back of the store to get her portable DVD player. carson

Quinn stated that as she walked past Sabu, she could see that

he was bleeding out. Carson-Quinn stated that after she got her DVD player she and Hutchinson left the store.

The following report was written by Detective Jeff Sullivan. It

has been edited for length and clarity.

In-Custody Mirandized interview of Terrence Hutchinson on 4-25-2016

This interrogation was audio/Video recorded and occurred in room 624 of the Police Administration building. The audio/ video began at 10:02: 13, at which time I read Mr. Hutchinson his Miranda rights. He indicated to us that he understood

them, knew they were his rights and would answer ques

tions relative to his arrest.

Hutchinson initially stated, "I made a mistake ... I acciden tally." He went on to say that he shouldn't have been playing

(Continued)

with the gun. He said that the victim, whom he referred to

as Sabu or "big bro," let him and his girlfriend "Shay" into the

store after hours where they watched DVD movies, drank

and smoked. Hutchinson said that one point Sabu brought

out a revolver, which Hutchinson referred to as "baby."

Hutchinson went on to say that it was an accident, it wasn't

supposed to happen and that he was "goofing around."

Hutchinson said that he fired two gunshots from that gun

at some point and initially indicated the first gunshot was

an accident. He then panicked after that gunshot and got

nervous and scared. Following that first gunshot Hutchinson

indicated that Sabu fell to the ground and was saying

to Hutchinson "Trill, why?" "Trill" is a nickname given to

Hutchinson by an uncle many years ago. He said he fired

the second gunshot because he didn't want to get in trouble

and that during the shots Shay "was doing what she was

doing." Hutchinson said following the two gunshots he and

Shay left, at which point Shay called her friend, "Sheena" and

Sheena arrived and drove them both to her house on N 5th

St. Hutchinson said that he and Shay then went to his home

at 6413 N 8th St., changed clothes, and put the clothes he

had been wearing; shirt, shoes, pants and baseball cap in a

garbage bag and threw them in the dumpster.

Hutchinson said that after he shot Sabu he went through

his pockets to see if he had a few dollars for the bus for

him to leave. He said he took the gun with him, thinking he

could hide it. He later indicated that the gun police recovered

was not the gun he used. He said that he used his shirt to

open the store door following the shooting to avoid leaving

fingerprints.

I explained to him that the video shows him pointing the gun

at the victim's back. He indicated that he was unaware that

the gun was loaded when he pulled the trigger. He said he

fired the second shot because he didn't want to victim telling

the police on him.

Hutchinson also acknowledged that when they entered the

store that evening he did ask Sabu to "see the baby" (gun).

Hutchinson initially maintained that the gun police recovered

in the house when he was arrested was the gun used in this

offense. When challenged about his intent prior to the gun

shots he said, "All this was planned when the first shot was

fired." He said he just wanted to hurt Sabu with that first

gunshot. He said that prior to firing the first gunshot, he was

thinking how hard it was to find a job and the fact that he

has a child on the way due in several months. He figured if

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

the victim had $400-$500 on him it would help him in his

situation. Hutchinson went on to say that he knew Sabu had

a gun in the store as he has seen it several t imes in the past

and believed it was a .38 caliber revolver.

During the interrogation of Hutchinson, we learned that the

gun recovered by police was not the gun used in this offense.

First Hutchinson said that the gun used in this offense was at

a house in the area of N 1st W Keefe, that after the shooting

he gave it to a male he knew as "Jeff" and told him to get

rid of it.

At 11 :38:50 we took a break and returned at 11 :47:05. The

conversation continued as to the location of the gun used

in this offense. We then confronted him about his truthful

ness as to the location of the gun and then he said the gun

used was in a basement storage area at 6413 N 8th St., an

apartment building that he and his future child's mother

reside in. He said that his soon-to-be child's mother, Sherry

Salon, lives in #2 and a male he knew as "Jeff" lives in #1.

Hutchinson said that following the shooting, he and "Shay"

walked to 6413 N 8th St., where he gave "Jeff" the revolver

and believed "Jeff" put it in the storage area in the basement.

The interrogation ended at 12:11 :25 and the video was

turned off at 12:22:08. I returned Hutchinson to central book

ing where he asked me to pass a message on to the co

defendant, Shannon Carson-Quinn. He wanted to tell her that

he loved her and that he hoped she was not mad at him for

getting her involved in this situation. I did pass this informa

tion on to Ms. Carson-Quinn and related her response back

to Hutchinson where she indicated she was not mad at him.

on 4/25/16 Detective Jeff Sullivan and I were notified that the

subject we interviewed earlier in the day wanted to speak to

us again. I made contact with Terrence Hutchinson at his cell

and escorted him to Room 624 again. Hutchison was again

read his constitutional rights. He stated that he understood

these rights and wanted to make a statement. Hutchinson

stated that he wanted to tell us the exact location of the gun

he used.

Hutchinson indicated that the gun was at 6413 N 8th St. in the

basement storage room. He was then able to give a detailed

description of exactly where he placed the gun. Hutchinson

explained the descriptions of boxes and plastic bins in the

area of where he placed the gun. Hutchinson also described

that the storage room was never locked. He related that his

friend, Donald, let him come and go from the room. He said

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 43

PHOTO 3.1: This photo shows the inside of the store where the homicide occurred.

that Donald is married but he couldn't remember Donald's wife's name.

PHOTO 3.2 : Investigators searched for the fingerprints of the suspects at the store to support their confessions and to confirm their presence at the crime scene. Here it can be seen that the microwave oven at the store was examined for fingerprints.

Note: Photos 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 also relate to this investigation. He then informed us that he had dropped the victim's

keys into a hole with water in it in the basement. From the

description, the "hole" described may be a sump pump hole.

He again gave a very distinctive description of the location

and description of the hole. From his description, this hole or

sump pump was in a "common area" of the basement.

The interview ended at approximately 3:50 p.m. I then

escorted Hutchinson back to the central booking area. No further information at this time.

On the other hand, indirect evidence, which is also known as circumstantial evidence, con sists of crime-related information in which inferences and probabilities are needed to draw an associated conclusion. For example, in the Stanley Van Wagner case, the fact that the gun used to kill Stanley was the same caliber gun as the one owned by his wife is best considered circumstantial evidence that Amy killed Stanley; it does not necessarily mean that Amy definitively killed Stanley. If a witness saw Amy shoot Stanley, that information would be direct evidence that Amy killed her husband because no inferences would be needed to draw the conclusion.

Of course, from an investigator's perspective, the ultimate conclusions that need to be drawn are that a crime occurred and that the suspect committed the crime; however, there may be other conclusions that would be useful to establish as well. As a result, when deter mining whether evidence is direct or circumstantial, an investigator needs to consider the conclusion he or she is trying to establish. Consider Case in Point 3.1. Some items in the store had Shannon Carson-Quinn's and Terrence Hutchinson's fingerprints on them. Were the fingerprints direct evidence or circumstantial evidence? It depends on the conclusion the investigator is trying to establish. The fingerprints on the microwave oven would be best considered direct evidence that the suspects were in the store and touched the microwave but circumstantial evidence they were responsible for the murder.

It is important to understand that the distinction between direct and indirect evidence depends entirely on the need for inferences to draw the associated conclusion; it does not depend on the likelihood that the evidence is valid. For example, a statement from an eye witness claiming she saw the victim alive on Saturday is best considered direct evidence that the victim was alive on Saturday, regardless of the possibility that the eyewitness is mistaken. The possibility that the witness is wrong does not make the evidence circumstantial.

Indirect evidence: Evidence that requires inferences in order to draw a conclusion; also known as circumstantial evidence.

44 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Circumstantial Evidence Is Not Very useful

Circumstantial evidence is often viewed as less valuable

than direct evidence in establishing proof. It is sometimes believed that a person cannot be convicted of a crime based

on circumstantial evidence alone. This is not true. In fact, cir

cumstantial evidence can be quite powerful in establishing

proof-perhaps even more influential than direct evidence, especially if there is a sizable amount of circumstantial evi dence that can be presented. As shown in the chapter intro duction case, a defendant can certainly be convicted of a

crime based only on circumstantial evidence.

There are many different types of circumstantial evidence. First, a person's physical abil ity to commit a crime can be introduced as circumstantial evidence of guilt or innocence. For example, consider again the case of Amy Van Wagner. She knew how to use a gun, she had access to the gun used to kill the victim (it was her gun), and the victim was shot from behind, requiring no extraordinary abilities to fend off the victim's resistance.

Second, an alibi, or the lack of an alibi, may be best considered circumstantial evidence. An alibi is a claim on the part of a suspect that he or she was somewhere other than at the crime scene at the time of the crime. The primary issue associated with an alibi as evidence is its believability. Because alibis are often established by friends of the suspect or by the suspect's own account (e.g., "I was home in bed by myself"), they are often not believed by investiga tors or jurors. An alibi could be considered exculpatory evidence, or the lack of an alibi could be considered inculpatory evidence. In either case an alibi (or lack thereof) is best considered circumstantial evidence. From a suspect's perspective, one of the problems with alibis is that they are often difficult to precisely establish and prove. Yes, Amy Van Wagner was verified to be at work at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, but as an alibi that is not useful if the murder occurred at 5:30 a.m. As another example, consider the case of Steven Avery (see Chapter 15). Avery was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1986 and spent eighteen years in prison before he was cleared of the crime through DNA analysis. Avery had sixteen witnesses (including friends, family, and clerks at a store) and a store receipt that corrobo rated his alibi, but the jurors did not believe this evidence. They believed the victim who (incorrectly) identified Avery as the attacker. The Avery case is not unique. In many wrongful conviction cases, alibis are presented but not believed.

Third, MO, or the method in which the crime was committed, may be considered circum stantial evidence. In particular, if a series of crimes are committed in a particular manner, and a defendant has been linked to one of these crimes through other evidence, one could infer that the defendant committed the other, similar crimes as well. The reasonableness of the inference may depend strongly on the uniqueness of the MO. For example, if a series of house burglaries took place in early afternoons in the same neighborhood in which entry was gained by breaking a window and only jewelry was taken, it might allow investigators to infer that whoever committed one of the crimes also committed the others.

Fourth, the existence of an identifiable motive (or lack thereof) may represent circumstan tial evidence of guilt or innocence. Motive-a reason why the crime was committed-is an important dimension of identifying a perpetrator. If a motive such as anger, revenge, greed, or jealousy on the part of the perpetrator can be established, one may infer that the defen dant committed the crime. It was suggested by the prosecutors in the Amy Van Wagner murder trial that she killed her husband because he threatened to divorce her for stealing his money.

Chap&er 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

PHOTO 3.3: This subject was apprehended with a pocket full of cash near a gas station that was just robbed. This is circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime.

Fifth, if an individual is found to be in possession of the fruits of the crime, this evi dence could be used to infer that person is guilty of the crime. For example, if a per son is found in possession of a cell phone that was taken in a robbery, it might indicate that person committed the robbery. However, that person could have come into possession of the cell phone in some way other than being the one who actually took it.

Sixth, the existence of prior threats made by the suspect or similar prior behaviors exhibited by the suspect may be introduced as circumstantial evidence of that person's guilt in a crime. If Amy Van Wagner had previously made threats to do harm to her husband, it would have been powerful circumstantial evidence that she killed him.

Seventh, character witnesses can be introduced to help establish the innocence of the defen dant. Character witnesses are used by the defense to bring evidence to court that the defen dant is incapable of committing a crime like the one in question. For example, witnesses testified that Amy and Stanley were in love and that she could never have killed him. Finally, evidence concerning an individual's attempts to avoid apprehension after the crime occurred can be used to infer guilt.

• Testimonial, Real, Demonstrative, and Documentary Evidence Just as all evidence can be considered either direct or indirect, all evidence can be classified as either testimonial, real, demonstrative, or documentary.

Kelly Dwyer, twenty-seven, was last seen on a security camera

entering her friend Kris zocco's apartment building in October

2013. She was not seen leaving, and she was never seen alive

again. The investigation naturally focused on zocco, and in

the process child pornography and drugs were found in his

possession. He was convicted and sentenced to prison on these

charges, but Dwyer's body was never found. zocco claimed she

had left the building and that he had nothing to do with her dis appearance. In May 2015 Dwyer's remains were found along a roadway about sixty miles from Zocco's former apartment. The cause of death could not be determined. Subsequent to the discovery of Dwyer's body, zocco was charged with her mur

der. As outlined in the criminal complaint, the evidence against

him was entirely circumstantial specifically the following:

• A twenty-six-second video recovered from zocco's cell phone recorded one month before Dwyer disappeared

depicted a sex act that hampered her breathing.

• zocco had a history of performing violent sexual acts

with girls and women, including bondage and potentially

lethal sexual asphyxia, dating back to when he was sixteen years old.

• zocco had a history of stalking girls and women who

ended relationships with him; he exhibited controlling

behavior toward girls and women and had a short

temper. one witness had sought a restraining order.

Another told her husband that if anything happened to her the police should look at zocco first.

• Dwyer's friends had observed bruising to Dwyer's neck and wrists after she spent time with zocco in the weeks

prior to her disappearance.

• A witness said Zocco had a large golf bag in his living

room. It was there about two weeks before Dwyer

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

disappeared. When a search warrant was executed on the apartment after Dwyer was reported missing, the

golf bag was gone, but a set of golf clubs remained in the apartment.

• The SIM card in zocco's phone was removed from

the device for seventeen hours between 7:43 p.m. on

October 11 and 2:41 p.m. on October 12. During this period the GPS information generated by the phone or apps could not be collected.

• zocco had purchased a pair of new shoes from a Sports

Authority store, about thirteen miles from where Dwyer's body was found.

• Prosecutors believe zocco had dinner and spent the night with a woman as Dwyer's body sat inside the golf bag in the trunk of his car.

• zocco's housekeeper said zocco never cleaned up

after himself. However, cleaning supplies found to have zocco's, and Dwyer's DNA on them were found in the apartment. The housekeeper said she hadn't bought the items or put them there.

• Dwyer's skeletal remains were found facedown and

extremely contorted, with one of her arms bent at a

severe angle behind her back and a leg bent up under her, indicating that she probably was placed into some kind of container shortly after death and her body went into rigor mortis while in that container.

All of these "circumstances" together raise serious ques tions about zocco's responsibility in the death of Dwyer. As

of this writing in October 2017, the case was awaiting trial.

Testimonial evidence: Evidence that is in the form of words spoken in court by a person under oath.

Lay witnesses: Persons who provide testimonial evidence based on facts personally observed.

Testimonial evidence is evidence presented in court through· witnesses speaking under oath who would be committing perjury if they did not state what they believed to be the truth. Testimonial evidence often begins as statements made to the police. Witnesses can be con sidered either lay witnesses or expert witnesses. Lay witnesses are individuals whose testi mony is limited to the facts as personally observed. In some situations lay witnesses may also offer judgments as they relate to the particular case at hand (e.g., "In my best judg ment, the person I saw running through my backyard was about 6' tall").

Expert witnesses are persons who possess special knowledge about a particular issue or phenomenon under examination (e.g., ballistic comparisons, DNA analysis, estimation of

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

time of death). Expert witnesses often hold academic or scientific positions and have expert knowledge of the issue at hand. They are able to express their opinions about the issue in court and speak about hypothetical cases. Ideally, the function of expert witnesses is to help the jury or judge understand the complex issue under consideration-to basically educate the jury.

One form of testimonial evidence is hearsay. When someone repeats information that someone else said, it is hearsay. Sometimes considered gossip or secondhand information, hearsay is most often excluded from consideration in court proceedings because it is con sidered unreliable. The serious concerns about the reliability of hearsay are that (1) the person who made the original statement was not under oath and therefore was not obli gated to tell the truth and (2) the person who originally made the statement cannot be cross-examined to test his or her perception, memory, veracity, and ability to be articulate. To avoid the potential problems of hearsay, investigators need to get information "from the horse's mouth." For example, suppose a lawyer has a witness with critical information about the crime, but this witness would not likely leave a favorable impression on the jury and probably would not be believed by the jury. The witness is sloppy, not very articulate, and of questionable mental competence. Without the hearsay rule that excludes most hear say evidence, the lawyer could have this witness meet with another individual who would have a much more favorable impression on a jury. This second potential witness is bright, articulate, and attractive. The sloppy witness could tell the articulate witness the relevant points of the testimony and then the lawyer could call the articulate witness to testify. Clearly, this hearsay testimony could raise all sorts of questions about fairness and the discovery of the "truth."1

As with just about every legal rule, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, and there are instances when hearsay is admissible as testimony in court. For example, previously recorded testimony that was provided under oath and was subject to cross-examination is admissible as hearsay as long as the witness is no longer available. Dying declarations of a victim may be admissible in court through hearsay. Statements made by a defendant can be admitted in court as hearsay; especially useful in this regard are admissions and confessions. An admis sion involves acknowledging some aspect of involvement in the crime (e.g., "I was at the gas station at about midnight"), whereas a confession involves acknowledging the actual involve ment in the crime (e.g., "I robbed the gas station at about midnight"). Given a defendant's right to remain silent, unless he or she chooses to testify, the only way a defendant's state ments may be presented in court is through hearsay. Furthermore, if the defendant chooses not to testify, a claim on his or her part that the statements were not subject to cross-examina tion would be odd (the statements were not subject to cross-examination because the defendant chose not to testify). There are several other, seldom encountered exceptions to the hearsay rule.2 See Case in Point 3.3 for an example of unusual hearsay evidence that played a critical role at trial.

REAL EVIDENCE Real evidence is also known as physical evidence, scientific evidence, or forensic evidence. Real evidence refers to tangible objects that can be held or seen and that are produced as the direct result of the commission of a crime. Examples of real evidence include blood splatters on a wall, semen recovered from a victim, and the knife used to kill a victim. In the Amy Van Wagner case, the blood on the carpet and the shell casings on the floor were real evidence. All real evidence introduced in court must be accompanied by testimony that demonstrates the evidence complies with the rules of evidence (see Chapter 4).

DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE Demonstrative evidence refers to tangible objects produced indirectly from a crime that relate to the crime or the perpetrator. For example, diagrams or videos of the crime scene

Expert witnesses: Persons who provide test imonial evidence based on expert knowledge of a particular issue.

Hearsay: A form of testimonial evidence that is secondhand or repeated information.

Real evidence: Evidence produced as the direct result of the crime having occurred; it can be held or seen.

Demonstrative evidence: Tangible objects produced indirectly from a crime that relate to the crime or the perpetrator.

48 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

CASE in POINT 3·3 . A Homicide Victimls

' Letter to the Police

A husband was accused of killing his wife by poisoning her. She had suspected he was going to kill her, so she had writ

ten a letter to a detective at the local police department. She

gave the letter to her neighbor with instructions to give it to

the detective if she were to die. The letter was written on

November 21; the woman was found dead in her home on

December 3. The letter was admitted at trial as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. The letter read as follows:

the brief affair I had with that creep seven years ago.

Mark lives for work + the kids; he's an avid surfer of the Internet.

Anyway-I do not smoke or drink. My mother was an

alcoholic, so I limit my drinking to one or two a week.

Mark wants me to drink more with him in the evenings. I don't. I would never take my life because of my kids

they are everything to me! I regularly take Tylenol +

multi-vitamins; occassionally [sic] take OTC stuff for colds; zantac, or lmmodium; have one prescription for migraine tablets, which more use more than I.

Pleasant Prairie Police Department, Ron Kosman

or Detective Ratzenburg-1 took this picture+ am writing this on Saturday 11-21-98 at 7am. This "list"

was in my husband's business daily planner-not meant for me to see. I don't know what it means, but if anything happens to me, he would be my first

suspect. Our relationship has deteriorated to the

polite superficial. I know he's never forgiven me for

I pray I'm wrong + nothing happens ... but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors +fear for my early demise. However I will not leave [my two

sons]. My life's greatest love, accomplishment and

wish: My 3 D's-Daddy (Mark), [deleted] +[deleted].

Documentary evidence: Evidence that is in some form of a document.

Julie c. Jensen

may be produced by investigators for evidentiary reasons and used in court, photographs of a victim (or a victim's injuries) may be produced and used in court, and radiographs showing injuries to a viCtim may be introduced in court. Photographs, videos, diagrams, and medical records are all common forms of demonstrative evidence.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE As the name suggests, documentary evidence refers to any evidence in the form of a document or to evidence that documents some issue related to the crime. Examples would be printed e-mails or other documents relating to the crime, bank statements, and surveillance video. Evidence extracted from electronic devices, such as cell phone text messages, would also usually be best considered documentary evidence. This evi dence is also referred to as digital evidence. The evidentiary value of documentary evidence is limited to the content of the document. For example, if a cell phone is intro duced as evidence because of the fingerprints on the phone, the phone (and fingerprints) would be best considered real, not documentary, evidence. However, if the phone is evidence because of photos on it, the photos would best be considered documentary evidence. ·

Sometimes the lines are blurred between testimonial evidence, documentary evidence, real evidence, and demonstrative evidence. For instance, in Case in Point 3.3, the actual letter written by the decedent would be best considered documentary evidence, but what was said in the letter would best be considered testimonial evidence (hearsay). If there was a question about whether the victim actually wrote the letter, the handwriting would best be consid ered forensic (real) evidence. A video that captured a crime as it occurred would best be

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

PHOTO 3.4: Bullets are best considered real evidence. Shown here is one of the bullets recovered from the convenience store homicide discussed in Case in Point 3.1. Notice its deformity as the result of striking the floor.

PHOTO 3.5: Crime scene photographs are best considered demonstrative evidence. The photograph here shows some of the clothes worn by the victim in Case in Point 3.1.

considered documentary evidence because the video was produced as a direct result of the crime. A crime scene sketch would be demonstrative evidence, not documentary evidence, because that evidence was produced only indirectly as a result of the crime and only after the crime occurred.

Corpus delicti evidence: Evidence that helps establish that a crime occurred.

Corroborative evidence: Evidence that supplements and strengthens already existing evidence.

Cumulative evidence: Evidence that duplicates but does not necessarily strengthen already existing evidence.

Associative evidence: Evidence that links people, places, and things to each other.

Identification evidence: Evidence that has as its purpose the identification of a person.

Behavioral evidence: Evidence that provides a basis on which to identify the type of person who committed a crime.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

• • • The Functions of Evidence Evidence, be it testimonial, real, demonstrative, documentary, circumstantial, or direct, may serve various purposes or functions in establishing proof. In this sense, evidence can be classified as corpus delicti evidence, corroborative evidence, cumulative evidence, associa tive evidence, identification evidence, or behavioral evidence.

CORPUS DELICTI EVIDENCE

Corpus delicti evidence refers to evidence that establishes a crime actually occurred. For example, a dead body with knife in its back is best considered corpus delicti evidence that a homicide occurred. The presence of semen recovered from a victim may help establish that a rape occurred (of course, the presence of semen does not always prove that a rape occurred, just as the absence of semen does not always prove that a rape did not occur). A victim's statement that property is missing from his or her house and that no one had per mission to take it establishes that a burglary occurred. In cases such as these, the dead body, the semen, and the victim's statement constitute corpus delicti evidence.

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE Corroborative evidence is evidence that is supplementary to the evidence already available and that strengthens or confirms that available evidence. For example, a male suspect is apprehended near a burglary scene and his fingerprints are collected from the scene. The fingerprints would corroborate the statements of a witness who saw the suspect running from the house with a television.

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE Cumulative evidence is evidence that duplicates but does not necessarily strengthen already-existing evidence. For example, when investigators find five witnesses (as opposed to just one) who can provide the same details about the same incident, this constitutes cumulative evidence.

ASSOCIATIVE EVIDENCE Associative evidence is evidence that can be used to make links among crimes, crime scenes, victims, suspects, and tools or instruments. Evidence may also prove to be dissociative, showing a lack of association between crime scenes, victims, and so forth. Most evidence in criminal investigations is used to establish associations.

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE Evidence that leads to the identification of a person is considered identification evidence. Fingerprints and DNA most commonly serve this purpose. Fingerprints and DNA may be recovered from a crime scene, and through the use of an automated computerized search, the perpetrator may be identified. Dental evidence can also be used to make identifications, usually of dead bodies.

BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE Behavioral evidence provides a basis on which to identify the type of person who might be responsible for a particular crime and considers directly the nature of the crime and how it was committed. Behavioral evidence constitutes the basis on which a psychological/crime scene or geographical profile may be built or on which linguistic analysis may be con ducted. Behavioral evidence is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

PHOTO 3.6: An empty box of cigarettes located at the convenience store crime scene from Case in Point 3.1 .

PHOTO 3.7: Upon conducting a search of the house of one of the suspects, several packs of cigarettes were found in the corner of the bedroom by the bed. The cigarettes associated the suspect to the crime scene and served as associate evidence.

• • Documenting Evidence: The Value and Importance of Investigative Reports Reports are written documents that contain information relating to a criminal incident and its investigation. As illustrated in the police report excerpts provided in Case in Point 3.1 in

52 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

PHOTO 3.8: In the process of being attacked in a vehicle, a woman broke her fingernail.

PHOTO 3. 9: When the vehicle was recovered, a broken fingernail was discovered. The fingernail associated the victim with the vehicle.

this chapter, as well as in the police reports included in Chapters 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13, investigative reports contain information about the criminal incident (e.g., who, what, where, when, and sometimes why and how). They are used to document the activities per formed in the investigation and the information uncovered as a result of those activities. This could include, for example, witness statements and identifications, the presence of physical evidence recovered from the crime scene, and/or the confession obtained from the

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations

perpetrator. Investigative reports may also include details on the offender's MO and descriptions of the suspect, the suspect's vehicle, and the property taken. Incident reports are most often written by patrol officers at the conclusion of the initial investigation. Supplementary reports typically consist of a narrative that describes in more detail the leads in the case, the sources of the leads, the results of the leads, and statements from witnesses and suspects. Supplementary reports are most often completed by detectives on an ongoing basis throughout a follow-up investigation.

It is difficult to overemphasize the importance and value of well-written and thorough reports in investigations. Report writing is an extremely important skill and activity for police officers and detectives. Investigative reports reflect the writer's education, intellect, training, and competence as an investigator, similar to how the papers you write in college are a reflection of your capabilities as a student. Most police departments do not "grade" officers' reports; however, reports are usually reviewed by supervisors for style, form, com pleteness, and accuracy. Indeed, contrary to what is portrayed in television detective dra mas, a considerable amount of investigators' time is spent simply reading and writing reports.

Investigative reports may be read by numerous people for various reasons. Other police officers, investigators, and supervisors certainly read reports, and so do prosecuting attor neys, defense attorneys, judges, citizens, the media, and others. Each person who reads a report may have a different reason for doing so. Police supervisors may read reports in order to determine whether a case should receive a follow-up investigation or to manage progress and activities in investigations. Investigators may read reports to determine what has been done in the investigation and what activities still need to be performed. Investigators often review their own reports when testifying in court to refresh their mem ory of the crime and the investigation. Prosecutors read reports to become familiar with the conduct of the investigation and the evidence in the case. They use reports in order to determine whether charges should be pursued against a suspect and, if so, what those charges should be. They also use them to prepare cases for trial. Like prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys read investigators' reports to become familiar with the investigation and the evidence in the case. Defense attorneys often question investigators about their reports when the investigators testify in court. Finally, judges may review reports to familiarize themselves with the evidence in the case, to understand how the investigation was con ducted, and to review the legality of officers' and investigators' conduct.

For all these reasons, it is critically important that reports be well written, accurate, com plete, and in proper form. Police officers and investigators typically receive numerous hours of training regarding the technical aspects and requirements of report writing in their respective agencies. Briefly, several basic rules can be identified for writing good reports: 3

• Reports should be well organized. The narrative of the report should identify, in chronological order, the activities performed by the investigator who wrote the report, and it should identify the information/evidence obtained as a result of those activities.

• Reports should be factual, specific, and detailed. Opinions, personal beliefs, and summary conclusions should not be included in reports. Conclusions may not be justified, may be ambiguous, and may be misinterpreted. For example, instead of writing, "She then confessed to the

crime," the words actually spoken should be included in the report.

• Reports should be written in past tense, first person, and active voice. For example, "I then spoke with Mr. Roberts. He stated that he was at home with his two children between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m." is preferred over "Mr. Roberts was then spoken to. He states that between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., he was at home with his two children." In addition to the second statement being awkwardly written, it is not even clear who spoke with Mr. Roberts.

• Reports should be accurate. Details matter. Details minimize the possibility for misinterpretation and confusion. Even basic errors, such as misspellings of names, incorrect date of births, and wrong addresses, can be significant, especially when the report is in the hands of a defense attorney who wishes to question the competency of an investigator. Little errors can lead to big problems.

• Reports should be objective. All facts that appear relevant should be included, regardless if they support the case or not. In addition, the words used in the report should also

CRI MINAL INVESTIGATION

be objective. The best way to ensure objectivity in word choice is to be as factual as possible. Instead of writing " Mr. Roberts had the appearance of a gang member," write "Mr. Roberts had a tattoo that read 'Vice Lords' on his chest." Instead of writing "Mr. Roberts claimed that he was at home," write simply "Mr. Roberts stated that he was at home." Interestingly, the word stated is probably the most common word included in investigative reports.

• Reports should be written in Standard English. The rules of the English language apply to investigative reports. 4

Reporting and record-keeping processes and policies vary considerably across agencies, as do the actual reports completed by investigators. In most agencies the process is computer automated, so reports can be typed on computers or dictated. In some agencies reports are handwritten. Some agencies store and process reports electronically, others manually. The one consistent dimension across agencies regarding investigative reports is that much of investigators' time is spent reading and writing them.

MAIN POINTS 1. Criminal evidence is any crime-related information

on which an investigator can base a decision

or make a determination. Evidence is used to

establish proof that a crime was committed and that a particular person committed that crime.

2. Judicial evidence is evidence that is admissible in court and meets the rules of evidence; it is often

referred to as admissible evidence. Extrajudicial evidence is any information on which an investigative decision can be based but that is not allowed in court proceedings; it is often referred to as inadmissible evidence.

3. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to exclude or eliminate someone from consideration

as a suspect. lnculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to include or incriminate a person as the perpetrator.

4. Probable cause exists when it is more likely than not that a particular circumstance exists. Probable cause is the standard of proof of most

direct relevance to investigators in solving crimes, especially when conducting searches and making

arrests. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof needed in a trial to conclude that a defendant is guilty of a crime. In order for police to legally stop and frisk an individual, the police have to have a reasonable suspicion about that person's

involvement in or association with a criminal act.

s. Direct evidence refers to crime-related information that immediately demonstrates the existence of a fact in question. As such, no inferences or presumptions are needed to draw the associated conclusion. On the other hand, indirect evidence, which is also known as circumstantial evidence,

consists of crime-related information in which inferences and probabilities are needed to draw an associated conclusion.

6. Testimonial evidence is evidence that is presented in court through witnesses speaking under oath. Testimonial evidence often begins as statements

made to the police.

Chapter 3 • The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 55

7. Lay witnesses are individuals whose testimony is limited to the facts as personally observed. Expert witnesses are persons who possess special knowledge about a particular issue or phenomenon

under examination. Expert witnesses are able to

express their opinions about the issue in court and

speak about hypothetical cases.

8. When someone repeats information that someone else said, it is hearsay. Hearsay is most often excluded from consideration in court proceedings

because it is considered unreliable, although there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule.

9. Real evidence is also known as physical evidence, scientific evidence, or forensic evidence. Real evidence refers to tangible objects that can be held or seen and that are produced as a direct result

of the commission of the crime. Demonstrative evidence refers to tangible objects that relate to the crime or the perpetrator and that are produced indirectly from the crime. Documentary evidence refers to any evidence in the form of a document or to evidence that documents some issue directly related to the crime.

10. corpus delicti evidence refers to evidence that

establishes that a crime actually occurred.

IMPORTANT TERMS

Corroborative evidence is evidence that is supplementary to the evidence already available and that strengthens or confirms it. cumulative evidence is evidence that duplicates but does not necessarily strengthen already-existing evidence.

Associative evidence is evidence that can be used

to link crimes, crime scenes, victims, suspects,

and tools or instruments. Evidence that can be

used to identify a perpetrator is considered to

be identification evidence. Behavioral evidence provides a basis on which to identify the type of person who may be responsible for a particular

crime and considers directly the nature of the crime and how it was committed.

11. Reports are written documents that contain information relating to a criminal incident and its investigation. They are used to document

the particulars of a crime and the investigation. Investigative reports may be read by numerous people for different purposes.

12. Reports should be well organized; they should be factual, specific, and detailed; they should be written in past tense, first person, and active voice; they should be accurate and objective; and they

should be written in Standard English.

Associative evidence, 50

Behavioral evidence, 50

Beyond a reasonable doubt, 39

Corpus delicti evidence, 50

Corroborative evidence, 50

Cumulative evidence, 50

Demonstrative evidence, 47

Direct evidence, 40

Documentary evidence, 48

Exculpatory evidence, 39

Expert witnesses, 46

Extrajudicial evidence, 39

Hearsay, 47

Preponderance of the evidence, 39

Probable cause, 39

Proof, 39

Real evidence, 47

Reasonable suspicion, 39

Standards of proof, 39

Testimonial evidence, 46

Identification evidence, 50

lnculpatory evidence, 39

Indirect evidence, 43

Judicial evidence, 38

Lay witnesses, 46

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND REVIEW 1. What is the difference between judicial evidence

and extrajudicial evidence?

2. What is the difference between exculpatory evidence and inculpatory evidence?

3. What is proof? What are the various levels or standards of proof?

4. What is the difference between direct evidence and indirect evidence? Is one type of evidence more

useful than the other? What are various types of

circumstantial evidence?

5. What are the differences between testimonial evidence, real evidence, documentary evidence, and demonstrative evidence?

6. What is hearsay? What is the hearsay rule? What are the major exceptions to the hearsay rule?

7. What are lay witnesses and expert witnesses? What is the role of each in court?

~SAGE edge™ Give your students the SAGE edge!

CRIM INAL INVESTIGATION

8. What are corpus delicti evidence, corroborative evidence, cumulative evidence, associative evidence, identification evidence, and behavioral

evidence?

9. Why are accurate, thorough, and well-written

investigative reports so important in criminal investigations?

10. What are the rules to follow when writing investigative reports?

SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources for review, study, and further exploration, keeping both instructors and students on the cutting edge of teaching and learning. Learn more at edge.sagepub.com/brandl4e.

CHECK YOUR COMPREHENSION ON THE STUDY SITE WITH:

• eFlashcards to strengthen your

understanding of key terms.

• Practice quizzes to test your

comprehension of key concepts.

• Videos and multimedia content to

enhance your exploration of key

topics