Observing Evidence: Case Study

From the very beginning of this move during the initial investigation of the crime scene, which is when detectives arrive on scene to try and piece together what happened, I can already see that the detectives are not following proper procedure in handling evidence. When evidence is collected at a crime scene; protocol says it should be handled with gloves to prevent contamination and preserved in plastic bags that are supplied by the department to start the chain of custody. “The use of latex gloves or disposable forceps when touching evidence often can prevent such problems” (Saferstein, 2011) such as contamination. The chain of custody is the procedure of transferring evidence between parties by logging who is taking custody of the evidence and when. Later in the movie they show the detectives all huddling around the crime scene without care which could have contaminated evidence in the vicinity. The first thought that comes to mind when I watched the cops arrive at Central Park is what gave them probable cause to be there. “More than bare suspicion; it exists when “the facts and circumstance within the [the officers’] knowledge and of which they [have] reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.” (Worral, 2014) . The circumstances were as such: it was late at night, police had gotten several calls about disturbances in Central Park, when they arrived there was a group of people and when approached they all disbursed in different directions. Throughout the stories of the five victims of what happened after the group of people scattered was a common theme of excessive use of force by the police officers. As soon as the teenagers were in custody, being that their freedom and movements were restricted, they should have been read their Miranda Rights, which there was no mention of having happened in film. After the police found the female jogger lying in the woods with a fractured skull, massive amount of blood loss and signs of rape; I immediately thought of aggravating circumstances. “Circumstances that would lend toward a harsher penalty during sentencing” (Worral, 2014). After finding out about the female jogger the five teenagers were eventually interrogated. Under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution they had the right to counsel while being interrogated. However, there was no indication any of the youths had counsel during the interrogations. Interrogation is “Express questioning or the equivalent of a question.” (Worral, 2014) and the interrogation of the teenagers would become a hot topic during the trial. Because of this the police had created a situation where deliberate elicitation had occurred or they created conditions in which they were influencing the suspect to make an incriminating statement. Next the assisting district attorney started to record their confessions after four out of the five teenagers gave statements. Having a taped confession is considered direct and real evidence. Direct evidence is a piece of evidence that the jury does not need to infer anything from unlike circumstantial evidence where it proves a fact that is not necessarily obvious or indirectly. Real evidence is something that is physical and tangible unlike testimonial evidence that is mostly statements made by a witness. In the courts a confession can held to the same standards as having DNA evidence; a confession is “when a person implicates himself or herself in criminal activity following police questioning and/or interrogation.” (Worral, 2014). At this point, the suspects had been booked and, even though it was not mentioned, probably went through all the pre-trial appearances. Pre-trial appearances happen before the actual trial to sort out the details of what happened and to decide what happens after the suspects are booked. Then once an attorney was hired …show more content…
Federal Law states that minors cannot be sentenced with capital punishment for a crime which was decided in the case Ropers v Simmons. “Nevertheless, according to some observers, a juvenile’s ability to theoretically understand the difference between “right” and “wrong” does not mean that he or she should be held to the same standards of competency as adults” (Gaines & Miller, 2012) So even if the death penalty was relegalized it would not be an option for the