Based on this week lecture attachment in 150 words to answer those questions

User Generated

havdhrcvpxfreivprf

Business Finance

Description

First thing, I want you to do before you answer those questions on that paper. Read those instructions and follow them.

You must answer the questions thoroughly and cite all relevant assigned readings for those attachments (using APA format). In a separate page, send me the links I want to verify them.

DO NOT refer to or incorporate information from extremely unreliable sources (e.g., Wikipedia, TMZ, and The Onion).

Based on this week lecture attachment in 150 words to each answer those questions

Posts must be well written, free of grammatical errors, relevant to the topic, and demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

Postings are defined as more than simply stating “I agree,” or “good answer,” but includes

WHY you agree/disagree or why you think it is a good answer or not.

Required readings:

Ogle, R. R. (2011). Crime scene investigation and reconstruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. (ISBN: 978-0136093602)

Osterburg, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (2013). Criminal investigation: A method for

reconstructing the past (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing (ISBN: 978-

1455731381)

Recommended readings:

Fisher, B. A. J. (2004). Techniques of crime scene investigation (7th ed.). Boca Raton,

FL: CRC Press.

Lyman, M. D. (2002). Criminal investigation: The art and science (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal profiling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES CJI 550 LECTURE Legal Considerations Introduction During this week, we will examine legal considerations as they relate to investigative processes. Among the most important aspects of these legal considerations are criminal law, constitutional law, and Miranda and rights waivers, which are covered in this week’s readings. This lecture will concentrate on the dynamics of trial and court room testimony. Trial It is important to remember that winning at trial is oftentimes more about who presents the better argument than it is about fairness or justice. This may seem disappointing; however, it is a reality that the investigator must acknowledge and live with if he or she is to be effective in the courtroom. Before a trial begins, hearings will have occurred during which the defense will attempt to obtain rulings from the judge that will be favorable to their side. Through discovery, the defense will have been given access to the evidence that the prosecution plans to present, which is often challenged as being unfair, especially with highly damaging evidence. Once the trial is set, it will usually be held in front of a jury in complex cases. A jury will be selected and both the prosecution and defense will have opportunities to challenge prospective jurors. As the trial begins, the prosecutor will outline his or her case during opening arguments and the defense will outline his or her case, each one postulating the weaknesses of the other’s case. Following the opening arguments, the prosecutor will present his or her case, usually beginning with calling witnesses whom were initially interviewed by investigators. It is also likely that the prosecutor will have crime laboratory experts testify concerning the physical evidence that was recovered by investigators. Additionally, other law enforcement officers will testify about information they developed during the case. The defense will then present their case, usually challenging the physical and testimonial evidence presented by the prosecutor. Most of the challenges occur during cross-examination of the investigators where the defense will attempt to call into question the conduct of the investigation and the credibility of the investigators. Technical issues concerning improper collection efforts, chain of custody, and method of analyses of the physical evidence are commonly raised. Questions concerning the accuracy of observations, interviews, affidavits, and rights waivers are examples of challenges to testimonial evidence. Following the presentation of evidence, both sides will deliver their closing arguments. The prosecution will summarize the evidence they presented and explain how it proves the defendant’s guilt. Thereafter, the defense will review the evidence and argue how the evidence Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES CJI 550 presented does not prove their client’s guilt. Ultimately, the jury will render a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or hung (meaning that they couldn’t come to a consensus on the defendant’s guilt or innocence). Court Room Testimony Ultimately, the final result in bringing a case to fruition is the investigator’s testimony in court. As a result, it is critical that investigators prepare themselves thoroughly. When preparing for trial, the investigator should coordinate closely with the prosecutor to avoid surprises in court. This coordination involves spending enough time with the prosecutor to determine what questions will be asked by the prosecutor and what responses to expect from the investigator based on the evidence and facts of the investigation. In addition, the investigator should query the prosecutor on possible questions and alternative interpretation of the facts of the investigation that may be brought up by the defense. The following actions should be considered before testifying: • • • • • • • • • • • Review investigative actions and coordinate with the prosecutor before attending the hearing Review all statements for clarity Review all waivers, affidavits, and search warrants for investigative and legal sufficiency Review times, dates, and places of primary importance to the investigation Review investigative notes and prepare miscellaneous notes for use as quick reference material Avoid trying to memorize notes Coordinate with the evidence custodian and physically review all evidence acquired in the investigation Verify that the evidence is properly marked for identification Review the chain of custody Coordinate with the prosecutor on specific items of evidence required for court Refresh memory by visiting the scene of the crime During court, it is important for investigators to establish themselves as credible witnesses. To accomplish this, the investigator should present an appearance marked by cleanliness, neatness, and concern for the details. Additionally, the investigator should refrain from distracting mannerisms or actions, such as shaking, fidgeting, or excessive arm motions. Investigators should also avoid using police jargon or technical language, as it tends to confuse the jury. For example, instead of saying “I then observed the suspect exit the vehicle,” the investigator could say, “I then saw Mr. Jones get out of his car.” If an objection is raised by either the prosecution or defense, the investigator should stop his or her testimony until the judge rules on the objection. In addition, the investigator should never blurt out answers to a question that is asked by the defense until he or she is sure that the prosecution will not object. Likewise, the investigator should never volunteer any information while testifying that was not called for in a question. If the investigator does not know the 2 Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES CJI 550 answer to a question, he or she should respond, “I do not know,” rather than trying to guess, which can cause a loss of credibility. The investigator should keep in mind that during cross-examination, the defense counsel will use a variety of questioning techniques in attempts to establish inconsistencies and prejudices REGARDLESS of the strength of the case. This should be expected, so it is in the investigator’s best interest to remain calm, polite, and professional. Conclusion The best any investigator can do is to bring into court a well prepared case. The investigator should not expect the defense to plea bargain or stipulate to anything. In fact, the investigator should expect rigorous cross-examination. The investigator must be prepared to provide the best testimony possible, which is grounded in good preparation and coordination with the prosecutor. Bibliography Department of the Army. (1985). Law enforcement investigations. Washington, DC: Author. Dyson, W. E. (2001). Terrorism: An investigator’s handbook. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Fisher, B. A. J. (2004). Techniques of crime scene investigation (7th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Lyman, M. D. (2002). Criminal investigation: The art and science (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 3 Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi Racheldine 1. What is meant by the term, “fruit of the poisonous tree” as it relates to the law? Fruit of the poisonous tree refers to evidence that is obtained illegally. If the source of the information (the tree) is poisonous, then the evidence gathered from that source (the fruit) will be tainted as well. If an investigator tries to hide the source of the information or evidence gathered and it comes out later who and from where it was obtained, it could completely negate the evidence, solely because it was gained in illegal ways or from illegal sources. Fruit of the poisonous tree. (2018, May 28). Retrieved May 28, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree 2. What is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion? Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. The police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true. Reasonable suspicion is a lower burden of proof than probable cause. It is based on specific facts taken together from which a rational inference can be made, and the suspicion must be associated with a specific individual. Reasonable suspicion is when a person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been or is about to engage in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of facts, even if each fact is harmless on its own. Probable cause. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2018, from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable Cause Reasonable suspicion. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2018, from https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable suspicion 3. What potential pitfalls can occur if the investigator does not adequately coordinate with the prosecutor before testifying? If an investigator and prosecutor do not coordinate adequately it could greatly jeopardize the success of the prosecution of the case. The investigator may not know what the prosecutor will ask and therefore may not be prepared with the answers. An investigator that looks like they don’t know what they are talking about on the stand, or makes errors, can look un-credible to the jury. It would also be the job of the prosecutor to prepare the investigator for possible questions asked by the defense. If the investigator is not prepared for what the defense may ask, they may get tripped up, and again look like they are not credible. Vecchi, Gregory. (2017) LECTURE Week 6. (Microsoft Word Document). Retrieved from https://sharklearn.nova.edu/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd= view&content_id=_7141627_1&course_id=_328398_1&framesetWrapped=true
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags