Criminal Evidence Principles And Cases 3rd Edition Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson - Solutions

Unlock the full potential of your studies with our comprehensive resource for "Criminal Evidence Principles and Cases 3rd Edition" by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson. Discover online solutions and step-by-step answers to enhance your understanding of complex topics. Access our answers key and solution manual for solved problems, chapter solutions, and test bank insights. Our instructor manual and textbook resources provide the guidance you need. Enjoy the convenience of free download solutions PDF, offering detailed questions and answers to support your learning journey.

How does criminal procedure affect the enforcement of criminal law?
Understand the difference between law in action and law on the books.
Know the differing philosophical perspectives of judges.
Define precedent and role of precedent in judicial decision making.
Know the sources of criminal procedure.
Appreciate the objectives of criminal procedure.
Specify how criminal procedure strikes a balance between the interests in investigating and detecting crime and in convicting criminals on one hand and the interest in protecting the right of individuals to be free from intrusions into their privacy and liberty on the other hand.
State the difference between criminal law and criminal procedure.
In Chapter 6 we discussed the extent to which courts may take judicial notice of a fact, including the reliability of scientific theories. May a court take judicial notice of the reliability of the scientific theory of blood-spatter analysis? At what point does a theory become so accepted as to be
Flow did the defendant in United States v.Kapp [419 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005)]attempt to use animal DNA evidence?Is DNA useful for that purpose?
As the text notes, some states continue to use the Frye test for the admissibility of expert scientific evidence. Florida is one of those states. In Sybers v. State [841 So.2d 532 (Fla.App. 2003)], a Florida court held that the state’s expert should not have been permit¬ted to testify, based on
Once a scientific method has been demon¬strated to be reliable, does the party that proposes to introduce expert scientific testi¬mony based on that method have to produce expert testimony to establish the foundation for the method again? In Hernandez v. State[116 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App. 2003)], the
A defendant was’ charged with murder in a shotgun slaying at a residence. Although fingerprints and shoeprints were found at the crime scene, they were not shown to match defendant’s fingerprints or shoes. The pros¬ecution offered testimony by a state police officer who was a qualified firearm
Bank robbery trials often include video evi¬dence of the robbery. (The admissibility of such videos was discussed in Chapter 17.)Where the facial image on the video does not clearly match the defendant’s face, what may the prosecution do to otherwise use the video to connect the defendant to the
In Chapter 16 we discussed palm print evi¬dence as a method of identifying a suspect in a crime. Experts who give testimony on palm prints must show their testimony is based on reliable scientific theories and methods.Human palms have creases and ridgelines, which are used to make comparisons
Not every state has a rule of evidence pat¬terned after Rule 702 of the Federal Rules, and thus not every state court uses the tests identified in the Daubert case for admissi¬bility of scientific evidence. In State v. Jones, 681 S.E. 2d 580 (S.C. 2009) the prosecution attempted to prove the
Assume a minor charges another minor with possession of alcohol after a police officer stopped the defendant in his car and observed alcohol in containers. The police officer demanded the driver’s license, which showed the defendant to be underage. At his trial, the defendant refused to produce
Is the fact that a juror faints when shown photographs of a victim’s body sufficient evidence that the photograph is gruesome?(See State v. Green [48 P.2d 1276 (Kan.2002) (No. 86,953)].)
Videotapes and photographs differ in that photographs are normally visible immedi¬ately, whereas videotapes must be placed into a video player. This difference can have consequences when a lawful search of a res¬idence turns up both photographs and videos. May the police put the videotapes into a
In State v. Bluff [52 P.3d 1210 (2002) (No.990808)], the prosecution in the murder trial of a mother offered as evidence postmortem photographs of the young child, who died from child abuse, as well as videos showing the child’s mother participating in sadomas¬ochistic sexual acts. The Utah
Federal officers suspected the defendant was acting as an agent for Iraq in the United States. An American counterintelligence officer working in Iraq obtained a file (the“Baghdad file”) which contained documents that incriminated the defendant. Are the documents admissible? (See United States
Border patrol officers routinely inspect a database called “CLAIMS,” which contains names of persons who have filed applica¬tions to reenter the United States after having been deported. If the search comes up empty, the suspect is charged with illegal reentry.May the officer who searched the
Courts often say the fact that photographs of the victim are gruesome and upsetting does not alone require their exclusion from a trial.In United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93(S.D.N.Y. 2002), the trial court did refuse to admit photographs of a victim’s head, showing damage inflicted by a
To be admissible in a criminal trial, a video purporting to depict a defendant must have sufficient clarity to be understood by the jury. If a video lacks that clarity, can the prosecution produce a witness to testify that he is able to recognize the defendant in the video, even though others may
One problem with evidence such as finger¬prints, palm prints, or bite marks is showing not only that evidence found at the scene matches the defendant but also that the evidence was left there when the crime occurred. That proved to be a problem for the prosecution in Buffkin v. State [207 S.W.3d
Kirk v. Louisiana [536 U.S. 635 (2002)] is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a state appeals court that permitted the introduction of evidence taken from a person arrested for illegal drugs. What did the police officers do wrong, and what arguments should the prosecution have made? On
The case of State v. Carter [544 S.E.2d 835(S.C. 2001)] illustrates some of the chain of custody issues that have arisen when DNA evidence is used in a trial that takes place many years after a crime was committed.When such evidence is stored and moved around during those years, the possibility of
In People v. Cowan [782 N.E.2d 779 (Ill.App. 2002)], the court held that the state failed to show the required chain of custody of a controlled substance. What did the state do wrong? What should the police do to avoid this result?
In People v. Davis, 879 N.E.2d 996 (Ill.App. 2007), review denied, 888 N.E.2d 1186 (Ill. 2008), the defendant was con¬victed of murder. The only physical evidence connecting him to the murder was a lip print on a roll of duct tape found near the victim, which the state’s expert testified were
Fortin was convicted of sexual assault, which included bite marks on the victim’s chin and left breast. After this conviction,Fortin was charged with the murder of another woman. At his trial on the murder charge, the prosecution wanted to introduce the evidence of the prior assault, contending
Fingerprints found at a crime scene must match those of a defendant before they can be admitted as evidence. However, the prosecution must also prove the fingerprints were left at the time the crime occurred. That can be a problem where a defendant had access to the place where the fingerprints
The application of the Fourth Amendment, under Davis v. Mississippi and Hayes v.Florida (discussed in this chapter), to fingerprints taken from a suspect after an ille¬gal arrest or detention is not uniform in lower federal courts. Compare the holdings of the courts in United States v. Plaza-Leon,
When federal officers in Wisconsin obtained a telephonic search warrant to look for ille¬gal drugs at a “stash” house, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e)(3)(A) required that both the officers and the judge issuing the warrant make a written copy of the autho¬rization for the search.
Assuming the police may bring a dog to“sniff” a vehicle stopped for a routine traffic violation without “reasonable suspi¬cion” that illegal drugs are present in the vehicle, may the police detain the vehicle and its passengers beyond the time needed to handle the traffic stop without
Can one have an expectation of privacy in a public place? Drug deals and other crimes sometimes take place in public restrooms. As a result, police officers conduct surveillance of such restrooms. May the police look into a restroom stall to observe a crime being committed? In State v. Orta [663
If you are a short-term guest at a friend’s home, do you have an expectation of pri¬vacy, such that a warrantless entry by the police into that home violates your Fourth Amendment rights? In the case of In re welfare of B.R.K. [658 N.W.2d 565 (2003)(No. C7-01-1466)], the Minnesota Supreme Court
As noted in the text, some controversy exists among state courts on whether dog“sniffs” are searches, in particular when the sniff is not of a vehicle (as was the case in Illinois v. Caballes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on this subject discussed in this chapter). How did the Minnesota deal
In Florida v. J.L, discussed in this chapter, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to say that anonymous tips are not sufficient to justify police to search or arrest a suspect. However, as the discussion of that case showed, the ruling in the case was carefully tailored to the facts. It is not uncommon
As the text notes, the “plain view” doctrine is often used to justify the admission of evi¬dence of crimes discovered when officers“look” inside a computer file pursuant to a search warrant or other lawful manner.Because cell phones, in particular “smart¬phones,” have video storage
Most states have wiretapping statutes mod¬eled after the federal wiretap law, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2510. These laws typically have provisions limiting the use of information gained by a prohibited “interception” of a“wire, oral, or electronic” communication.In Hentz v. State, 62 So.3d 1184 (Fla.
Did a drug-interdiction officer violate the Fourth Amendment when he told bus pas¬sengers to leave a bus and claim their lug¬gage, and then he searched a bag in which a canine sniff had alerted to drugs? Does it matter that the defendant initially refused to claim the bag as his property? (See
May the police assist medical personnel in giving a defendant under lawful arrest a laxative to cause him to eliminate a bag of suspected heroin that he had swallowed?What exception to the requirement of a warrant is applicable? (See Winston v. Lee[470 U.S. 753 (1985)] and State v. PayanoRoman [714
May the police conduct background checks of passengers during a routine traffic stop? If so, what are the limits on such procedures?Does the Brendlin case discussed in this chapter have any bearing on the question?(See People v. Harris [886 N.E.2d 947(Ill. 2008)].)
Must a search “incident to an arrest” occur after the arrest, or is a search of an auto¬mobile made prior to the decision to make an arrest permitted under the rule in New York v. Belton} (See United States v. Powell[451 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 2006)].)
Assume a police officer, after making a lawful stop, conducts an invalid search of a vehicle under the Gant rule. The search uncovered illegal drugs and weapons, and the driver was arrested. The car was impounded and brought to a police impound lot. The driver was charged with possession of illegal
After overhearing from a public telephone what appeared to be arrangements for a drug transaction, a Florida police officer followed the defendant’s car. When Jimeno committed a traffic violation, the officer stopped his car. The officer told Jimeno that he believed that Jimeno was carrying
Portland, Oregon, police officers were investigating the strangulation murder of the defendant’s wife in her home. The defendant was not living with his wife and voluntarily came into the police station with an attorney for questioning. The defendant was not arrested, but probable cause to arrest
Detectives first noticed the defendant at a ticket counter in the Miami airport. Their attention was drawn to the defendant because he and his two companions behaved in an unusual manner as they left the counter. The other two men talked to each other but not to the defendant. When one of the men
If the victim identifies the defendant in a photo array, may the detective who con¬ducted the array testify about the victim’s demeanor during the array? For example, may the detective testify that the victim appeared “very positive” in her identifica¬tion? (See State v. Lee [873 So.2d 582
In State v. Herrera [902 A.2d 177 (N.J.2006)], the New Jersey Supreme Court found a showup to be impermissibly sug¬gestive in the identification of the defendant who was convicted of carjacking. Why didn’t the court reverse the conviction? What did the court say to the defendant’s argu¬ment
Is it relevant that a witness had previously been shown a photograph of a person who resembled the defendant, and that the wit¬ness indicated it was not the perpetrator of the crime? Why would the prosecution want to introduce evidence of a non¬identification? Should it be permitted to do so? An
In People v. Maldonado [743 N.Y.S.2d 389(2002)], the court held that a sketch made by a police artist of an assailant was inadmissi¬ble. How does this court treat such sketches, and what did the state try to argue to get around that treatment? Is New York in the majority or minority of courts on
In Tillman v. State, 2011 WL 4577675 (Tex.Crim. App. 2011) the court reversed a trial court’s decision in a murder trial to exclude evidence of an expert witness called by the defendant to give an opinion on eyewitness identification reliability. The court refer¬enced the New Jersey Supreme
All courts state that one-person showups are not the best practice, and present greater risks of misidentification than lineups.However, most courts also permit the use of showup identification evidence, if the showup was tied to “exigent circumstances.”In the following case from Massachusetts,
This actually happened; you be the judge.Police arranged a lineup for a witness to view to identify the person who robbed him.Because the police could not get the witness on the phone, they left a message with his mother asking her to tell the witness to be at police headquarters at a certain time
The police arrest a suspect in a murder/robbery case. They bring the suspect to police headquarters for a lineup where three witnesses to the crime would view the sus¬pect. In order to fill the lineup, the police place Raheem, being held in connection with an unrelated crime, in the lineup with
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean “effective assistance” of counsel; see McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759(1970). Is counsel “ineffective” if he fails to inform a defendant, an alien lawfully present in the United States, that a
Is a confession made to a private person admissible in a subsequent criminal prose¬cution? If so, is the prosecution required to prove that the confession was “voluntary”?Why or why not? (See Com. v. Miller[865 N.E.2d 825 (Mass. App. 2007)].)
As stated in this chapter, it is a fundamental truth under the Fifth Amendment that incriminating statements are not admissible if they are not given voluntarily. Statements can be “compelled” in a variety of ways.One way the government can compel an admission is by subjecting a person to a
The corpus delicti rule has been used to pro¬hibit convictions based only on a confession, without corroborating evidence. Should this rule be retained? In State v. Mauchley [67 P.3d 477 (2003)] [Case No. 20010551], the Utah Supreme Court decided to reject that rule and instead use the
As stated in this chapter, the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is “charge spe¬cific,” meaning that the right attaches only to interaction with police relating to the charges against the defendant. As a result, police may question a defendant charged with one crime about another
Police were called to a crime scene at night, where a woman had been killed by being struck in the head with a blunt object. While canvassing the vicinity of the crime scene the police encountered the defendant, who fit the description of two men observed kicking the victim. The police officer
Most courts continue to hold that the results of polygraph tests are not admissible in criminal trials, mainly because the science behind polygraph tests has not been shown to be “reliable.” (See the discussion of scien¬tific evidence in Chapter 18.) In United States v. Allard, 464 F.3d 529
The police arrested a defendant in connec¬tion with a murder by gunshot in which another person was also involved. After giving the defendant the Miranda warnings, the defendant requested an attorney. The police ceased interrogation, and placed the defendant in a cell. A few minutes later the lead
Police entered a liquor store in pursuit of two suspicious characters. Even though the store’s night manager instructed the two men not to go into the backroom, they did, and the police followed them. While in the backroom, the police discovered illegal drugs and charged the store manager with
Child welfare agencies are charged with the task of determining when a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect. In their investi¬gations, they often interview the child or chil¬dren whose care is being questioned. What are the Fourth Amendment implications of such interviews, if done without
As this chapter notes, school officials may conduct searches of students and school lockers based only on reasonable suspicion, not on probable cause. In People v. Williams[791 N.E.2d 608 (Ill. App. 2003)] [Docket No. 93573], a police officer was investigat¬ing a burglary during which a handgun
The “special needs” rationale discussed in this chapter has routinely been used by courts to justify searches based only on rea¬sonable suspicion of persons on probation or parole. In Coleman v. Commonwealth [100 S.W.3d 745 (2003)], the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to justify the search by a
The reason security screenings and luggage searches at airports do not require individu¬alized suspicion is because of the legitimate public purpose of preventing weapons or explosives from being brought on airplanes.As a result, searches of baggage, either carryon or checked, is permissible so
As we saw in this chapter, cases like New Jersey u. T.L.O require “reasonable suspi¬cion” for searches of school children on school property. However, cases like Vernonia School District v. Acton and Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls permit random, suspicionless searches of
In Michigan State Police v. Sitz, the Supreme Court held sobriety checkpoints constitu¬tional in part because they differed from“roving-patrol” stops of motorists because the checkpoints were established by police supervisors. Why does that matter? May field officers make their own independent
How far does the “workplace” extend so as to apply the rules in O’Conner v. Ortega?May prison officials search the vehicles owned by prison employees parked in the prison parking lot? Do they need “probable cause” and a search warrant, or reasonable suspicion? If the latter, what is
How “personal” is the personal computer you use at work? If your supervisor permits police to view your files and evidence of illegal activity is discovered, should that evi¬dence be excluded? What are the issues pre¬sented here? Consent by a third party?Expectation of privacy based on use of
When has property been abandoned for purposes of the Fourth Amendment? Is abandonment here used differently than in property law? See State u. Rynhart [125 P.3d 938 (Utah 2005)].
This chapter discussed the good faith excep¬tion to the exclusionary rule, which applies where the police in good faith believe a search warrant is valid. The Laughton case, included in the section on the good faith exception, held that the reasonableness of the police officer’s reliance on a
Refer again to the Johnson case cited in the Chapter 9 Case Analysis section. Both the passengers and the driver of the car were subjected to illegal searches. The standing rule discussed in this chapter determines which person can object to which illegal search. Who had standing in that case, and
Consider the issues presented by the follow¬ing fact situation. A person regularly spent time at his girlfriend’s apartment, often staying for weekends. He left a box with the girlfriend, telling her not to “mess with” the box. Based on information from another person, police came to the
Private searches are not subject to the exclusionary rule in part because no gov¬ernment agents are involved with the search.What happens when government employees conduct searches for personal reasons, but find evidence of crimes which they then turn over to law enforcement officers? See United
Consent searches are lawful; what limits are placed on how the police obtain that con¬sent? If consent must be voluntary, may the police use trickery or deception to obtain that consent? United States v. Harrison, 639 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2011).
How does the “plain view” doctrine apply to computer searches? If law enforcement offi¬cers have a valid warrant to search a com¬puter for evidence of a specific crime, when, if ever, do other computer files come under their “plain view”? See United States v. Sta¬bile, 633 F.3d 219 (3rd
What must the police show under the“inevitable discovery” rule if they wish to have evidence admitted that was the result of an unlawful search? What did the police argue in United States v. Heath [455 F.3d 52(2d Cir. 2006)]?
Can an airline passenger who has passed through an airport screening gate object to a subsequent secondary search and, if so, suppress evidence of illegal drugs discovered in that search? (See United States v. Aukai[497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007)].)
United States v. Johnson [380 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2004)] [Docket Nos. 03-3192, 03-3195] illustrates the complexity associated with applying the independent source doc¬trine and the inevitable discovery doctrine.Indeed, as the opinion’s author, Judge Pos¬ner, admits, the court in Johnson is not
The independent source doctrine comes into play when the police have discovered evi¬dence through illegal means but contend that other legal means also lead to the discovery of the evidence. The key to the doctrine is the word independent; the legal means must not be connected to the illegal
Not all state courts have been willing to follow the Supreme Court’s lead in the Herring decision. Some courts, like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, have reached different results by application of a state constitutional provision and exclusionary rule. In a situation similar to the facts in Herring
Amtrak police officers believed the defen¬dant fit the drug courier profile, in part because he purchased a train ticket for cash the day before his trip. When the defendant arrived at the train station, the defendant and a briefcase he was carrying were “detained”by the officers, who called
Texas police obtained a proper search warrant to search defendant’s house to look for evidence of check forgery, including equipment purchased with forged checks.The warrant identified various purchased property to look for, including a safe, but did not include the safe in the list of property
Police suspected the defendant was operating a house of prostitution. After investigation, the police developed enough evidence for the probable cause needed to obtain a search warrant. While officers were obtaining the search warrant, other officers went to the location and “detained” the
The defendant and another man, Saunders, were charged with murder. Saunders made a plea agreement, and at his sentencing the state introduced facts to support his guilty plea, including a statement by Saunders to the prosecution that a third person, not the defendant, shot the victim. When the
Is a police lab report testimonial, and thus inadmissible, if the person who prepared the report is unavailable to testify? Does either Crawford or Davis decide the question? (See State v. Caulfield [722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn.2006)].)
In United States v. Arnold [486 F.3d 177(6th Cir. 2007)], a woman (a) called a 911 number and stated that the defendant had a gun and planned to kill her. She was in her car when she called the 911 operator, and when police arrived, she got out of her car and (b) made further statements about the
Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Davis given retroactive effect and thus applicable in collateral review such as habeas corpus? What is the key to determining when new rules will apply to criminal convictions that were final before the new rule was announced? (See Wborten v. Bockting [127
The hearsay rule does not apply only to the prosecution’s case. Sometimes the rule can keep out evidence offered by the defendant, such as alibi evidence based on out-of-court statements. Where a defendant offers hear¬say, there is no Confrontation Clause issue.However, the offered evidence must
Statements made by a victim during police interrogations after an “ongoing emergency”has terminated are testimonial and inadmis¬sible if offered to prove the truth of facts in the statement. This is true even though the circumstances under which the statements are made otherwise qualified it
A few months before her death, the defen¬dant’s girlfriend called 911, and reported she had been beaten by the defendant. The tape included statements that the victim was afraid of the defendant, but also detailed statements about the beating, its motive, and when it occurred. The defendant was
A defendant was charged with sexual assault of his minor daughters. His daughters and his wife testified at a preliminary hearing, where the defendant’s attorney crossexamined the daughters about the sexual assault allegations. The case was bound over for trial. Before trial on the sexual assault
Charged with the rape of a child, the defen¬dant sought to admit out-of-court statements made by the victim to her father for the purpose of rebutting the state’s proof of oral penetration. Are the child’s statements“assertive statements” and thus covered by hearsay rules? Are they prior
In prosecutions of crimes such as theft of property like checks, the state hopes to introduce bank accounts, cashed checks, and signatures on checks. What are the hearsay implications for the introduction of such evidence? (See State v. Beele [931 A.2d 1258(N.H. 2007)].)
When a police officer testifies at a criminal trial resulting from a criminal investigation of the defendant, the officer is often asked to describe how the officer became aware of the possibility that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. If the officer gained that information from a
In Primeaux v. State [88 P.3d 893 (Ok.App. 2004)], a defendant sought to have the out-of-court statements of a co-suspect in a killing admitted at the defendant’s trial.The co-suspect was unavailable because he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify. The defendant argued

Showing 700 - 800 of 5213

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Last

Criminal Evidence Principles And Cases 3rd Edition Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson - Solutions

Step by Step Answers