CJUS 410 #3 Replies

4 days ago

Logan Wolf

DB 3--Wolf

Collapse

Top of Form

I believe that in this case, the evidence should be admissible in court. I believe this, because just like in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the woman in this scenario was not testifying or reporting a past crime. She attempted to call 911 but was unable to get a call out. Since she could not get a call out, she notified a Police Officer of the crime in progress just as in Davis v. Washington, the woman notified the 911 dispatcher. Furthermore, the woman in this scenario identified her attacker by sending a photo to the Police Officer, just as in Davis v. Washington, the woman identified her attacker to the 911 dispatcher. In the scenario, there was a crime in progress which was being reported for assistance with a currently ongoing emergency just as in Davis v. Washington. "Neither the 911 call at issue in Davis nor the police questioning at issue in Hammon is testimonial under the appropriate framework. Neither the call nor the questioning is itself a formalized dialogue.[Footnote 5] Nor do any circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements render those statements sufficiently formal to resemble the Marian examinations; the statements were neither Mirandized nor custodial, nor accompanied by any similar indicia of formality." (Davis v. Washington, 2006) The text messages in this scenario fall into the same circumstances as Davis v. Washington as stated above. In relation to Deuteronomy 19:15, I feel this argument could go in a few different directions. First, as a Police Officer, we are expected to investigate a case from an impartial point of view. Therefore, the Officer is expected to act as an advocate for the case whether which if it went to trial then obviously the Officer felt there was enough evidence to bring the charges upon the suspect. With that being said, the victim could be a witness (or in this scenario her complaint which happened to be correlated through text messages) and the Officer could then be considered a witness to testify about what he was able to uncover through his investigation satisfying the biblical requirement for the second witness. Second, depending on how the scenario plays out, the suspect could either state that he was there and did not assault her or that he was not there at all. If the suspect testifies that he was there but no assault occurred, being that it would be difficult to provide a defense with photographic evidence he was at the scene, then him testifying he was there could also qualify as the second witness placing himself at the scene. Finally, Although Deuteronomy 19:15 states that in order to convict someone of a crime, you must have more than 1 witness, I disagree. Even if based off of the scenario there is only 1 witness, I would not change my answer and still would allow the evidence to be admissible in court. "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." (James 4:17, ESV) As a Christian, we still have an obligation/duty to do what is right. If a victim is truly a victim, as a Christian we need to stand up for them and help them achieve justice for the way they were wronged.

Reference

Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) No. 05-5224.

Bottom of Form

5 days ago

Bobby Brown

Forum 3

Collapse

Top of Form

Based of the information found for this discussion, the text message and photograph should not be admitted as evidence to the trail. Reason being: This case requires the Court to decide whether the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial hearsay, and, if so, whether the 911 recording qualifies. (findlaw.com) The Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (findlaw.com) The Confrontation Clause also hold that in cases of criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witness against him. In the information provided, that accused did not show up for court, therefore, violating the Sixth Admendment’s Confrontation Clause. The admission of the evidence also violated the Sixth Admendment Confrontation Clause.

The information provides that the woman was “unable” to appear at the trail. What was the reason? Was the reason she could not appear valid enough for the information to be admitted? If so, this would change the entire response as it is listed in the Clause that testimonial statements can be used if the witness was “unavailable to testify.” The question is, what classifies as “unavailable?”

In referring to the biblical scripture, “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established,” (Biblegateway.com) I would maintatin my answer that the accused should not be punished. Based off my interpretation of the scripture, there need to be two or more witnesses of the offense in which there was not.

Davis v. Washington [05-5224]. United States Supreme Court DAVIS v. WASHINGTON, (2006), No. 05-5224. Argued March 20, 2006 Decided June 19, 2009.

 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/547/813.html

Deuteronomy 19:15. Biblegateway.com

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+19%3A15&version=KJV

Bottom of Form