Introduction
Ralph Patel was charged with the murder of Stephen Dale and was brought to trial. The victim was shot dead, and a 38 caliber bullet was ejected from the body during the autopsy. Patel faced the arrest two days after the shooting, and his house was searched as he was accused of murder. During the search, a dozen handguns, including one AK-47 and three rifles with sniper scopes, were found. However, none of the guns did match up with the bullet that was ejected from the body. In a pre-trial motion, the defense has moved to exclude the evidence of the guns found in Dale’s house, based on its irrelevance to the case. The judge should decide on the admissibility of the evidence in this case.
Issue
In the particular case under analysis the issue, which is presented to the court, is the admissibility of the evidence. The confronting parties here are the defense, which represents the interests of Ralph Patel, accused of murder, and the judge, who is supposed to make a decision, based on all the presented facts. The question of evidence’s admissibility is problematic because none of the guns, possessed by Patel, did match with the bullet, which was found in the victim’s body. As Melear (2013) states in her article, if the weapon which was not used in the crime is introduced as evidence, “the trial court must consider its relevancy, either to the perpetration of the crime or to the credibility of a witness, and then weigh the probative value, if any, against the possibility of unfair prejudice to the defendant” (p. 321). Therefore, the admission of Patel’s firearms to the evidence might serve as a prejudgement of the defendant. However, to solve the presented issue, one should dwell upon other cases related to the firearm case law, compare them to the problem under consideration, and then the conclusion could be made.
Rule
As it was mentioned before, the essential law, which is applied to such matters, is the Second Amendment that permits the United States citizens to possess and carry arms. Additionally, another law which could be applied to the related case is the bad character rule, which is regulated by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This law regulates the legitimacy of the evidence admission in the situations when such admission will adversely influence the defendant (or when it is needed to justify the defendant’s reprehensive behaviour). Thus, to put the analyzed problem into a proper context, one should touch upon the significant cases related to the Second Amendment since those cases’ interpretation of the firearm law could be relevant to the briefed case. The admissibility of the bad character evidence will also be observed.
The first case which should be considered is the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) in which the Supreme Court upheld that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (para. 2). Also, it was specially stated that “the District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense” (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, para. 10). It means that, according to the court’s decision, the handguns are not considered as a criminal matter of possession; moreover, they are mentioned as the means of lawful self-defense.
Two years later, in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (2010) , the Supreme Court mentioned the Heller’s case and ruled that “a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States” (para. 7). This case was a turning point in the history of firearm law, because it finally made the law applicable on the federal level.
Accordingly, these two precedents provide an evident testimony of the fact that the handguns are legal to possess and to keep at one’s house, unless the only aim of possession is self-defense. Also, in accordance with the bad character law, the evidence must be excluded if its admission causes an adverse effect on the proceeding. Generally, these facts provide a background for the analysis of the case.
Analysis
The next step of the briefing the case is its analysis on the grounds of the mentioned laws and precedents. Considering the accusation of Ralph Patel, it is evident that none of his weapons were used in the crime of which he is accused, and thus the relevance of this evidence to the case is arguable. Also, considering previously mentioned cases, which were held in the Supreme Court, it is possible to observe that the defendant did not violate the law by keeping the handguns in his house. Particularly, in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (2010), it was ruled by the Supreme Court that “the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States” (para. 9). Therefore, it is evident that Ralph Patel possessed the guns legally, which did not match with the bullet.
However, another law which is related to the case is the bad character rule. There are several principal attributes of the inadmissibility of the bad character evidence, and all of them could be applied to the defendant. There is no record of Patel’s “committing an offence or engaging in other reprehensive behavior or misconduct”; the guns are not “relevant to the matter of substantial importance in the context of the case”, and there is no “mutual agreement between the parties about the admission” (Bad character evidence, 2017). Therefore, applying the bad character rule to the case also reveals the inadmissibility of the evidence.
Conclusion
With the analysis and comparison of different cases that were given in the previous section, it is possible to conclude. Since the bullet from the body of Stephen Dale is not connected in any terms with any weapon in possession of Ralph Patel, it is possible to observe that the admissibility of those handguns to the evidence is not relevant to the case. Furthermore, such admission could be treated as an attempt to aggravate the reputation of the defendant. Also, it is reasonable to notice that “courts point to the prejudice due to the possibility of a propensity-line of reasoning based on a defendant’s gun ownership” (Melear, 2013, p. 318), and such possibility is relevant to the case under analysis. Therefore, the judge is advised to satisfy the defence’s inquiry by excluding the Ralph Patel’s handguns from the evidence.
References
Bad character evidence(2017). Web.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Web.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Web.
Melear, M. (2013). The admissibility of weapons not used in the crime charged. Thomas L. Rev., 26, 309-321.