In the first question, Defendant is charged with robbing a convenience store. The defendant owns a blue Honda Accord. During the trial, the government offers to play a record of the anonymous cell phone call to 911, on which the declarant says, “Hey, a guy just ran out of the 7-11 waving a gun. He jumped into a blue Honda Accord.” In my opinion, the evidence that is presented by the government is admissible in court because it shows the grounds on which the defendant was charged for having robbed the particular convenience store.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence. The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it. However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery. The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice. Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the 5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking. Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him (the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.