The Harris case is related to the course material because it illustrates the formal criminal justice process related to the court. Harris is being charged with a felony, which is why the case did not end in a plea bargain. The article also illustrates an instance in which discretion within law enforcement may be used. Hill points out that when investigating the murder the team failed to investigate other likely suspects.
The fact cannot be denied that circumstantial evidence plays a pivotal role in a criminal case. It has helped the courts in administration of justice in so many landmark cases which heavily relied on circumstantial evidence. Generally speaking, when a crime is planned and committed, the offenders try not leaving behind any direct evidences behind. They plan their acts in such a manner that no evidence can be construed against them. Thus it becomes quite essential to be able to link up all the events in such a manner so as to complete the chain of events.
A defense attorney may be faced with defending clients whom the attorney believes is guilty of the crime charged. Many would ask the question why advocate for someone’s innocence if your beliefs contradict. The sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, … and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” If a lawyer is a person who practices or studies the law and the constitution of The United States is the supreme law of the land. Lawyers have an obligation to counsel weather or not innocence or guilt plays a factor. Without this the whole system would collapse if lawyers choose not to represent based on feelings and not facts.
Another example is the Crime Control model is seen as an assembly line by many because it promotes efficiency which doesn’t allow for the defendant to have an opportunity to prove that he or she is not guilty like the due process model does. This brings me to my next distinction which is the major decision point. If a defendant was in the crime control model the major decision point most likely would’ve been made in a pretrial with a plea bargain, but if the defendant was to be in the due process model the major decision point would have been made in a courtroom and determined by a jury or impartial judge (Ortmeier, 2006). Overall I personally prefer and believe that the Due Process model should be embraced by society over the crime control model. I feel as if when using the crime control model the defendant is seen as just another case rather than a person which results in them not being given a chance to defend themselves.
The court system is responsible for verifying the facts of the case and deciding whether or not those arrested will be charged or released. If the prosecutor moves forward with charging the suspect, then the suspect becomes identified as the defendant. As a defendant, he or she will now go before a lower-court judge for the purpose of notifying the defendant of the formal charges against him or her, as well as being sure they understand their constitutional rights. In less serious cases, such as those classified as misdemeanors, an immediate trial can be held by the judge. Trials of this type are known as summary trials and do not necessitate the need for a jury.
INTRODUCTION Obtaining a detailed account of a crime is often a challenge for the police and most of the time it relies heavily on the collecting of physical evidence and also the questioning of eyewitnesses. All information is integral for the police in their direction of investigation, therefore it is important to understand the types of information and what it does to help with solving the case. The different types of information can be gathered from victims, witnesses, offenders and form of objects such as, forensic samples, audio and video recordings and documents (Stelfox, 2012: 86). Whilst physical evidence are usally being further analysed before elucidating more about a crime, eyewitnesses are often the next important source for enquiring more leads to further investigation. In absence to definitive proof, eyewitnesses’ accounts often act as vital evidence to the police and judges in their decision to prosecute a suspect.
Mobile crime scene investigation team plays a vital role to sorting varied important and sensational crimes in Rajasthan (India). it's vital that the crime scene investigator acknowledge that physical proof recovered from these scenes could extend well on the far side the conveyance itself. the character of the crime could offer the investigator a thought of the kind of proof gift. within the gift paper, a sensational case within the history of Rajasthan rhetorical Science, during which four members of a family were found, died at their residence. Primarily, police were underneath quandary that the members of the family were committed suicide, or the incident was manipulated by the criminal i.e.
Burden of proof in civil trial cases Burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies, this is the principle that one has to consider. Evidence contains facts of issues that really relevant and which is also admissible in the court, they are meant to support the case of parties or spoil the case which supposed to discharge party in his burden of proof, in civil cases it always based on the balance of probability, which the party have responsibility to establish before the court. Based on this, the court in civil will act on the preponderance of evidence, means that the party with genuine and clear evidence will wins the case. Example of this type of case is when there is a contract between two parties and plaintiff proved
murder or theft. Besides that, criminal law provides machinery by which the state may take action against the offenders. Basically, since crimes are offences against society, the state or Crown will investigate and prosecute the criminals.The victim generally does not play the role in the decision to prosecute. The prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the offenders. In Woolmington v DPP  AER 1, Lord Sankey in the Supreme Court said that‘the prosecution have the duty to prove the guilt of offenders’.