Criminal Procedure and Evidence

I also certify that this project paper has not previously been submitted for assessment in any other unit, except where specific permission has been granted from all unit professors involved, or at any other time in this unit, and that I have not copied in part or whole or otherwise plagiarized the work of other students and/ or persons. Name……………………………………………. Date…………………………… Signature………………………………………… Table of Contents The purpose of evidence 1 General process and handling of all evidence from time of discovery through disposition 2 Types of evidence. The admissibility of evidence. Nature, purpose and legal framework of privileged information regarding evidence. This moral direction is very significant and special in criminal cases simply because it shows the strong interest of the public of having the guilt things or people brought to justice and allowing the innocent to be free.

In addition, evidence protects the right of the accused so as to get a fair trial. More so, particularly for the case of criminal law, law of evidence serves a great role of protecting the rights of the accused person to get a fair trial in the court of law (Lawrence, 2005). General process and handling of all evidence from time of discovery through disposition After you have discovered a crime and collected the evidence, you place the evidence in a secure site(s), very fast check this evidence against custody forms and then arrange it for access to the evidence only under very close supervision, so that this evidence may not be altered in any way. You need to ask the respondents to suggest what evidence is going to be essential for the purpose of continued functioning of the research being conducted.

As the investigation process proceeds, you need to develop the collateral and comparison evidence in the same manner. Make provision for the analysis of the evidence under custody. You need to develop all the evidence from computers by use of an expert so as to secure the information from the computer central processing unit or you can even physically secure the central processing unit directly. Check for very secure backups by having expert who use the program to look for erased evidence (Schwarzner, 1988). Then, develop a series of indices that can be used to link all important items of evidence by their label or even by use of page. It is also significant in adding up the credibility since it draws parallels when there is less information to be used in proving during investigation.

Anecdotal Evidence is used during investigation in order to get a picture of a situation. The challenge of with this type of evidence is that it is sometimes used to present only anecdotes which only support a particular conclusion (Davis, 2017). Character Evidence is a type of evidence which is used as a document to testify and it is used to aid in proving that a person acted in a particular way based on his or her character. This is mostly used in investigation to prove opportunity or a person’s motive. Direct Evidence is a type of evidence which is the most powerful since it does not need interference and the evidence alone is the proof. For example, it can be the testimony of a witness who saw how the thing occurred.

Documentary Evidence is a type of evidence which is a written proof. This includes letters, wills, some types of media such as images, video and audio recording. Exculpatory Evidence is a type of evidence which can exonerate a dependent in a criminal case. Testimonial Evidence is a type of evidence which is either spoken or written by a witness who is under an oath. This can be gathered in court, at a deposition or even through the use of an affidavit (Jianfu, 2013). The admissibility of evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends upon three main factors; authenticity, relevancy and competency. Authenticity refers to the genuine character of the evidence. The question involved is, "Does the evidence aid the court in answering the question before it?" so as to understand the real essence of relevancy, we consider a situation in which an accused is charged with theft of property in the United States.

In several cases, the fact that the accused beat his wife regularly would probably have nothing when it comes to his theft of property of the Unites States. Thus, any testimony to that effect would be objectionable as being irrelevant (Jianfu, 2013). Competency is a factor that is used to describe evidence thus meaning that the evidence is so relevant and not barred by any exclusionary rule. Competent evidence is admissible as fit and appropriate proof in a particular case (Jianfu, 2013). Taking an example of the United States, there are several states which have already enacted the Uniform Medication Act which gives specifications of the meditator privilege with regard to the state procedures (Heeter, 2013). In the United Kingdom, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 provides that evidence that relates to spent convictions, (those that are in respect of which the Act says the convicted person is rehabilitated, generally older and less serious ones) is inadmissible, and also provides privilege against answering questions that are related to such forms of convictions although there are some exceptions apply and particularly in criminal proceedings thus giving the legal framework of privileged information regarding evidence (Heeter, 2013).

Despite the nature, purpose and legal framework of privileged information regarding evidence, there are also several effects that surrounds it. The main effect of the privilege is usually a right on the part of a party or rather a witness to a case, thus allowing them to refuse to produce evidence in the form of documents or even testimony from the person who is entitled the privilege. A good example is a person who have the ability or is in a condition in which he or she can generally prevent their attorney from making any testimonials about the legal leadership between the attorney and the client who is concerned, even if the attorney had total wail of doing so. Taking an example, a theft suspect who accept or agrees to reimburse the victim for the $2000 stolen, has offered an admission and not a confession.

While the fact remains that the guilt that he has and the willingness to pay back that amount of money is typical to that suspect, we have had one occurrence of a verified innocent person who accepted also to do this. The main principle that we need to keep in mind is that, an admission does not accept personal responsibility for committing the crime (Roger, 1998). Also, confession can be basically defined as an out-of-court statement made by the suspect in which in which he or she voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently makes an acknowledgment that he or she committed or even made a contribution or participation in the commission of a crime and that is what makes it clear that there is no defense in law and criminal act that would make his or her conduct lawful in any way.

This is in real sense what the appeal court meant in the Becker case when it said that a full confession had to be defined as an unequivocal admission of guilt by an accused person. This is a procedure that is unique to the law of several states (Jorge, 1995). The third phase of Legal Procedures for securing admissions and confessions is when the admissibility of the confession is challenged in the court of law and in a trial within a trial. If the suspect is undefended, then he or she may not be in a position of adequately exercising his procedural rights. But if he or she made a confession to the magistrate, then a suspect is presumed to have acted in a free manner and voluntarily and therefore confession is admitted in evidence on its mere production if his or her name truly corresponds to the name of the person who has signed that confession and if it appears on the document containing the confession that it was made freely and voluntarily and without his or her having been unduly influenced thereto (Jorge, 1995).

It is always recommended that, before an un-presented suspect is cross-examined on the contents of his or her confession where he or she has made this possible, he or she needs to be warned on the outcomes that may follow after it and the impacts of the same. New York: Touchstone. Larson, Aaron (2016).  "Conducting Discovery in a Civil Lawsuit".  ExpertLaw. Retrieved 30 September 2017.  "Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating".  LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2016-09-17. Heeter, Eugenée M. Wilkes, Paul (2012).  The Art of Confession: Renewing Yourself Through the Practice of Honesty. Workman Publishing. p.  xi.