In addition, the prosecutor must provide the defense with evidence that could harm their case, called exculpatory evidence. This evidence could prove the defendant's innocence. Exculpatory evidence is any evidence used to support a defendant's innocence at trial. This may be evidence discovered by the prosecution or the defense and must be presented to the court.
This evidence can be cell phone records or CCTV images that show that the defendant was in a different location than the place where the crime was committed. They can also consist of witness statements or samples collected at the crime scene that prove the innocence of a person accused of a crime. Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point of fact without interpreting the circumstances. It is any evidence that can show the court that something happened without the need for the judge to make inferences or assumptions to reach a conclusion.
An eyewitness who saw the defendant shooting at the victim could provide direct evidence. Similarly, a security camera showing the defendant committing a crime or a confession statement by the defendant admitting the crime could also be considered direct evidence. Direct evidence should not be confused with the concept of direct interrogation, which consists of the initial examination and questioning of a witness during the trial by the party who called him. And while every witness who presents evidence could, in theory, give direct testimony based on their own knowledge and experience, that evidence does not usually constitute direct evidence of the crime itself. Of course, direct evidence showing that the defendant committed the crime is the preferred incriminating evidence, but in practice, it is often not available.
The researcher must seek and interpret other sources of evidence and information. Often, a lot of circumstantial evidence is required to substantiate a case that allows the investigator to find reasonable grounds to believe and for the court to arrive at their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt. Exculpatory evidence is the exact opposite of inculpatory evidence, as it tends to show that the defendant or suspect did not commit the crime. It is important for an investigator not only to seek incriminating evidence, but also to consider it from an exculpatory perspective.
If the evidence is considered from an exculpatory perspective, it is demonstrated that the researcher is objective and does not fall into the tunnel vision trap. If it is possible to find exculpatory evidence that shows that the suspect is not responsible for the crime, it is useful for the police, since they allow us to eliminate that suspect and redirect the investigation to pursue the real perpetrator. After reading this, you may think that these exculpatory evidence and its defense sound a little vague, and that is the dilemma to which often faces the court. If they can plead guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they will find them guilty, but if the defense can present evidence that creates a reasonable doubt, they will declare that they are not guilty.
Experienced offenders can be very skilled at providing alternative explanations for their involvement in criminal acts, and it is sometimes useful for researchers to consider whether it is possible to invent an alternative explanation. If an alternative explanation can be anticipated, additional research can sometimes call into question the false aspects of alternative possibilities. Courts place great evidentiary value on corroborative evidence because it helps the court to reach its beliefs further. of any reasonable doubt.
For investigators, it's important not just to look for the minimum amount of apparent evidence at a crime scene. The investigation should also seek other evidence that can corroborate the facts attested by witnesses or victims in their accounts of the incident. An interesting example of corroborative evidence is the fact that the court accepts a police investigator's notes as circumstantial corroborative of the evidence and that agent's account of the facts. When a police investigator testifies in court, the court usually gives him permission to consult his notes in order to refresh his memory and provide a report full of the facts.
If the investigator's notes are detailed and accurate, the court can give significant weight to the officer's account of those events. If the notes lack detail or are incomplete on important points, the court may assign less value to the accuracy of the investigator's account. It is important for the investigator to know that all aspects of their research may be subject to disclosure as potential evidence for the court. As part of the fundamental justice process provided for in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a person accused of a crime has the right to have all the evidence of the investigation fully disclosed (R v.
Stinchcombe, 199. This means that any evidence or information collected during the police investigation must be available for the defense to examine and determine if that evidence can help the defendant present his defense in court).It is worth noting that police notes and reports related to the investigation are often studied very carefully by the defense to ensure that they are complete and have been fully disclosed. The disclosure will also include notes from the investigation and reports relating to other individuals considered, investigated and eliminated as suspects in the crime for which the defendant is being tried. If other suspects were identified and were not eliminated during the investigation, that lack of investigation can serve as a basis for defending the prosecution. Upon hearing any case, the court is empowered to accept or exclude any evidence that is presented. An evaluation is applied to all tests to determine if they will be admissible or excluded.
The types of evidence that can be admitted or excluded range from physical evidence found at a crime scene to factual accounts presented by witnesses to obtain a suspect's confession. For researchers, it's important to understand that the defense can challenge any evidence for exclusion. In the event of a challenge, the court will decide whether evidence should be excluded based on a series of rules and depending on the type of evidence being presented. When, in a proceeding under subsection (), a court concludes that the evidence was obtained in a manner that violated or denied any right or freedom guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is demonstrated that, taking into account all the circumstances, its admission to the process would discredit the administration of justice. Evidence is a key feature of any investigation, so it's important for researchers to understand the various legal definitions of evidence, the different types of evidence, and the way in which the court considers and weighs evidence.
Evidence constitutes the cornerstone of the research process, and for the final product to be properly constructed, evidence must be recognized, collected, documented, protected, validated, analyzed, disclosed, and presented in a way that is acceptable to the court. As we progress through this book, testing will continue to be a key element to consider in developing appropriate research processes. For the court, the detailed notes duly taken at that time corroborate the agent's evidence and represent a circumstantial guarantee of the reliability of the officer's testimony (McRory, 201). Any exculpatory evidence the prosecutor or police have is called Brady material, and the requirement to hand over Brady's material to the defense is called the Brady rule. These range from forensic analysis of the fingerprints or DNA that connect a defendant to the crime scene or victim, to witness evidence that describes a defendant's criminal conduct before, during, or after the crime.
Each relevant piece of evidence will be considered based on its “evidentiary value”, which is the weight or persuasive value that the court assigns to that particular piece of evidence when considering its value in proving a fact in question for the case being processed. Exculpatory evidence is evidence presented in a criminal trial that tends to show that the defendant is not guilty. However, depending on the complexity of the forensic evidence or when multiple forensic tests have been performed, the process can be complicated because it may require the prosecutor to work together with several forensic scientists to identify and prepare additional information relevant for disclosure. If the evidence does not relate to proving the place, time or identity of the accused or to the commission of criminal acts related to the crime itself, it will not be considered relevant for the purposes of the prosecution.
The prosecutor could also put everything in the hands of the defense in what is known as a document dump, since the defense is overflowing with thousands of materials and paperwork in an attempt to create confusion so that the defense doesn't find the exact evidence it is looking for. The courts have ruled that any evidence found and that should have been given to the defense is considered exculpatory if that evidence had yielded a different result. for the defendant. Sometimes, the defense will present exculpatory evidence at trial to show that the defendant was not involved in the crime or perhaps only participated to a lesser degree.
If the prosecutor finds any evidence that tends to show that the defendant did not commit the crime, he must hand it over to the defense. The court likes physical evidence because it is items that the court can see and examine to interpret the facts in question and obtain evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important to note that, when evidence is presented to the court, the investigator will have to provide an explanation of the circumstances under which evidence was sought and seized. From the court's perspective, there will never be any excuse for a police investigator to intentionally hide or stop disclosing evidence or information.
