Description Answer each question in 2-3 paragraphs 1.The levels of proof required increases from the time the case is filed until conviction. Is this fair to the defendant? Shouldn’t the prosecution

                                                                                         Evidence and Criminal Prosecution

Question 1

When the prosecutors establish a fact that proves that an individual had committed a crime, the burden shifts to the defendant to not only raise doubt about the fact but also disapprove it. This burden of proof may increase from the time a case is filed to that of conviction as the prosecution tries to prove that the accused had the intent in committing their crimes (Corrado, 2018). The increasing burden is not fair to the defendant.

            As a standard of proof in the US, the defendant should be allowed to file a responsive pleading guilty to or denying all or some allegations by putting forward any affirmative facts in defending themselves. This should be done at the beginning of prosecution to release the defendant from the burden of proof. Besides, it can be done at the outset of prosecution thus helping the accused to clearly state the facts that affirm his defense.

Question 2

 During a court hearing or trial, evidence can be presented in the form of testimony from witnesses, exhibits, photos, documents and any facts that the jury and the lawyers agree upon perceiving them as true. However, the law has not made a clear distinction between these different types of evidence. They fall under two categories which include; direct and circumstantial evidence.

            Direct evidence involves a witness giving a testimony about their recollections of an event. These include the witness, observed or heard. Ultimately, it is upon the jury to determine the extent of what they can believe. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is when a witness cannot testify directly to the court but presents facts based on reasonable inference. In the Federal Court, it is believed that circumstantial evidence makes weaker cases compared to direct evidence (Zamir et al., 2016). However, the court can still use circumstantial evidence to prove a case on grounds that the inferences are natural and reasonable. Besides, circumstantial evidence should be backed up with direct evidence to avoid piling inference on other inferences.

Question 3

            The exclusionary rule deters the Federal Courts from using the evidence collected in by going against the constitutional rights of the defendant. The rationales of excluding unlawfully gathered evidence are; to eliminate the misconduct of law enforcement officers, to protect the constitutional rights of the US citizens, to uphold judicial integrity and avoid compromising the truth (Turner & Weigend, 2019). However, the exclusionary rule is not applicable the police used a valid search warrant. Evidence gathered through illegal search can be accepted if it could have been obtained with another legal means.

            The exclusionary rule focuses on law enforcement rather the crime. The rule emphasizes on how the law enforcers obtained evidence of a crime instead of focusing on the crime committed. As a result, the system scrutinizes the conduct of the law enforcement officers rather than the weight of the evidence presented in the court of law (Milligan, 2018). On the other hand, it prevents the violation and weakening the US constitution. Therefore, the only feasible alternative is to the exclusionary rule is allowing the law police to obtain valid search warrants that enable them to legally collect evidence. This will allow the police to smoothly enforce the law and avoid violating the US constitution at the same time. Besides, obtaining a valid search warrant will help the court focus on the defendant’s crime rather than how the way evidence was obtained.

Question 4

            Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 necessitates that, when the police officers are searching a vehicle, they can only conduct a warrantless search on the passenger compartment on incidents recent to the arrest of the occupants only if there is a reasonable belief that there is a possibility that the vehicle contains the evidence of the offence and arrestee can access and tamper with the evidence before a search is conducted (Boldt & Gizzi, 2018).

Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, on the other hand, states that the law enforcement officers apprehending an individual at home, cannot search the entire place without a search warrant, but can search the area within the individual’s reach. The incidents of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 cannot be applied Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 because vehicles are mobile structures while homes are static therefore making it difficult for the arrestee to tamper with the evidence (Peters, 2019).

Question 5

            Under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), asking for consent before conducting searches are a constitutional right of every American and the Federal must prove that consent exists. Nevertheless, according to the Fourteenth Amendments, it is not a must for individuals to know their rights to object consent searches (Scott and Arthur (2020).

In this case, the government grants its citizen rights to consent but does not inform them that their rights are protected. Therefore most people all the law enforcement officers to search their vehicle because they are not aware that their consent is not protected. There is no balance between the government and individuals since the prosecution should not rely on consent search if an individual was of unaware of their right to refuse consent. Also, obtaining evidence against one's consent violates the United States constitution.

                                                                                                      References

Boldt, E. D., & Gizzi, M. C. (2018). The Implementation of Supreme Court Precedent: The Impact of Arizona v. Gant on Police Searches. Journal of Law and Courts, 6(2), 355-378.

Corrado, M. L. (2018). Free will, punishment, and the burden of proof. Criminal Justice Ethics, 37(1), 55-71.

Milligan, L. (2018). Police Transparency and the Exclusionary Rule. Available at SSRN 3218445.

Peters, J. B. (2019). Criminal Procedure-More Protection for Digital Information: The Supreme Court Holds Warrantless Cell Phone Searches Do Not Fall under the Search Incident to Arrest Exception; Riley v. California. Wyoming Law Review, 15(2), 571-591.

Scott, B., & Arthur, L. (2020). America's New Criminal Justice System Diversion Program, the Community Acceptance Program. Criminal Justice.

Turner, J. I., & Weigend, T. (2019). The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview. In Do, Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? (pp. 255-282). Springer, Cham.

Zamir, E., Harlev, E., & Ritov, I. (2016). New evidence about circumstantial evidence. Law & Psychol. Rev., 41, 107.