The 4th and 5th Amendments: The Bedrock of Evidence Law

Introduction

The 4th and 5th Amendments are the bedrock on which almost all legal constraints on the collection and presentation of forensic as well as testimonial evidence lie. In accordance to the 14th Amendment, it is applied in state-level cases. Various case laws affirm the applicability of the constitutional rights and provides the definitions, direction, as well as exceptions. The courts have over the years shaped the "exclusionary rule" as a result of the violations of the above protections. Therefore, a criminal investigator must possess comprehensive knowledge of the court decisions, the principles in which they are grounded, as well as their application to the investigation at hand. To understand these concepts better, this paper will review four legal cases with a focus on the collection and presentation of forensic and testimonial evidence.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Hinton v. Alabama, (2013) No. 13-6440 as a Forensic evidence case

Birmingham, Alabama witnessed a series of restaurant robberies between February and July in 1985. In the commission of the first two robberies, a .38 calibre bullet was used to shoot and kill the manager of each of the restaurant. However, the manager of the third restaurant survived and positively identified Anthony Ray Hinton as the perpetrator. Hinton was arrested by the police, and a .38 calibre revolver was found in his house. Forensic analysis concluded that the bullets had been fired from that revolver. He was charged with two counts of murder.

The prosecution's case was entirely built on the connection between the gun found in the suspect's house and the bullets found at the scenes of crime. Other than this forensic evidence, the prosecution did not present any other physical evidence. The defendant's lawyer asked for funds to seek an expert witness to rebut the evidence. The account of defence's witness was badly discredited. It was later discovered that the expert witness was a civil engineer, with little knowledge on ballistics, rather than a ballistics expert. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. Hinton appealed the decision citing incompetence of the lawyer since he did not know that the Alabama laws allowed more than $1000 to get expert witnesses. The Appellate Court, however, decided against him. At the Supreme Court Trial, it was decided that Hinton's attorney was incompetent since he did not request for further funding to get an expert witness. The court ultimately decided in favour of Hinton, and he was taken off the death row (Hartnett, 2016).

The decision by the Supreme Court was a reinforcement of the 6th Amendment which emphasizes on the right to counsel. The Supreme Court could also not affirm the forensic evidence, presented by the prosecution as the only physical evidence.

Forensic evidence is among the most potent sources of evidence. However, this case shows that if not well collected, investigated, and presented, the evidence can work against the prosecution as was the case during the Supreme Court Trial when the prosecutors had to admit that four of the bullets did not match with Hinton's gun.

Briscoe v. Virginia (2009) No. 07-11191 as a Forensic evidence case

Three separate cases were consolidated in this appeal. They involved the conviction, by a Virginia court, of the defendants for possession of cocaine. The defendants argued that the decision of the court to admit into evidence a certificate of analysis without the testimony of the person who carried out the analysis violated the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment.

The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the defendants' rights were not violated. The court argued that the defendants had voluntarily and knowingly waivered their 6th Amendment rights to confront the forensic analyst when they did not call the analysts as witnesses during trial (Klaiber, 2011).

The case shows how compliance with the Confrontation Clause can be achieved when presenting certificates of forensic analysis as evidence instead of a forensic analyst testifying.

On the 17th of March 2010, a teacher in Cleveland noticed some bruises on the face of a three-year-old. On inquiry, it was established that they were caused by his mother's boyfriend. The teacher raised the issue with a child-abuse agency, and the boyfriend, Darius Clark, was arrested and charged with child abuse. The three-year-old was ruled incompetent to testify. Out-of-court identification of the abuser was not excluded, however. Therefore, the statements that the three-year-old had given to his teacher was introduced as evidence though the child did not testify. The defendant was found guilty but appealed, claiming that his 6th Amendment right was violated by the admission of the three-year old's out-of-court statements.

The ruling of the lower court was reversed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The court argued that the teacher was acting as an agent of law enforcement since the law requires teachers to report any suspected case of child abuse. Resultantly, the court could only admit the three-year old's out-of-court statement if the teacher's main aim was to address a current emergency rather than establishing past events. Since the child was not in any danger of further injury, the court could not admit the out-of-court statement. The United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that the out-of-court statements could be admitted since they were not aimed at creating evidence (Dobson, 2014).

The ruling narrowed the standard set by the Crawford v. Washington case for the determination of whether the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment permits the admission of hearsay statements as testimonial evidence.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) No. 07-591 as a Testimonial evidence case

Melendez-Diaz was apprehended while selling cocaine in Massachusetts. During trial, bags of cocaine allegedly distributed by Melendez-Diaz were introduced as evidence. Drug analysis certificates were also presented. The jury convicted him of distributing and trafficking the drug. In the appeal, he argued that his right to confront witnesses as provided in the 6th Amendment was violated by the introduction of the drug analysis certificates. He also advanced that the testimonial evidence cannot be admitted unless the defendant gets a chance to cross-examine the witness.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals rejected his claims for lack of merit. The appeal was also denied by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favour of Luis Melendez-Diaz in a 5 to 4 decision. The court ruled that the lab analysis reports are testimonial statements and since Melendez-Diaz did not get a chance to confront the people who made the reports, his 6th Amendment right was violated (Mansfield, 2009).

The decision by the majority challenged the long-held rule that scientific analysis can be admitted as evidence even without the testimony of the analysts who produced it(Oyez).

Conclusion

Forensic and testimonial evidence is critical in criminal investigations. However, as shown by the discussed cases, the circumstances of collection and presentation can greatly impact the admission of such evidence. In some of the cases, evidence admitted by the lower courts was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States. The 6th Amendment has also come out as a critical determinant of whether to admit forensic and testimonial evidence or not. As revealed by the analysis, all the rights of the suspects, as outlined in the 6th Amendment must be respected in the collection and presentation of forensic and testimonial evidence. The analysis of the cases has helped me understand concepts regarding criminal investigations better.

References

Dobson, M. M. (2014). Child Abuse Prosecutions, Children's Statements, and the Confrontation Clause: Another Look at Testimonial Hearsay: Ohio v. Clark (13-1352). Preview US Sup. Ct. Cas, 42, 175. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/prvw42&section=56

Hartnett, E. A. (2016). Summary Reversals in the Roberts Court. Cardozo L. Rev, 38, 591. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/cdozo38&section=22

Klaiber, N. (2011). Confronting reality: Surrogate forensic science witnesses under the Confrontation Clause. Va. L. Rev, 97, 199. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/valr97&section=7

Mansfield, D. (2009). MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS: Laboratory Testing and the Confrontation Clause. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar, 4, 161. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/dukjppsid4&section=12

Oyez. (n.d.). Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Retrieved June 3, 20191, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-591