Class Characteristics Are Very Useful To Eliminate A Person ✓ Solved

Class Characteristics Are Very Useful To Eliminate A Person From Being

State and explain why evidence must be relevant to a case being investigated to be admitted into court.

In the realm of criminal investigations and court proceedings, the relevance of evidence is fundamental to ensuring a fair and just legal process. Evidence is considered relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, according to the standards set by the Rules of Evidence (U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, 401). Relevance is crucial because it helps establish the link between the evidence and the case’s facts, guiding the trier of fact—whether judge or jury—in making informed decisions. Evidence that is not relevant tends to distract from the legal issues at hand, potentially leading to unfair prejudices or confusions that might prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. The courts exclude irrelevant evidence to uphold the principles of fairness, prevent bias, and maintain the integrity of the judicial process (McCormick, 2010). Therefore, establishing the relevance of evidence ensures that only material facts are considered, preventing the admission of evidence that could improperly influence the outcome of the case.

Cite 2 items of evidence that would likely be considered irrelevant as evidence, and explain why they would be irrelevant.

One example of evidence that is often deemed irrelevant is a defendant's unrelated past convictions, especially when they do not have any direct connection to the current case’s facts. For instance, prior convictions for traffic violations are typically irrelevant in a homicide trial if they do not relate to the elements of the current crime, as they do not tend to prove or disprove any material fact in the present case and could unfairly prejudice the jury (People v. Carter, 1985). Another example is evidence involving the defendant’s unrelated personal beliefs or opinions, such as political affiliations or religious beliefs, unless directly relevant to the case’s issues. Such evidence is irrelevant because it does not have any logical tendency to prove whether the defendant committed the crime and risks creating bias or prejudice (People v. Williams, 2001). These types of evidence are excluded to ensure that the jury's decision is based solely on facts pertinent to the case, not extraneous or prejudicial information.

In the United States, there are forensic databases that are accessible to law enforcement and corrections to assist in identifying unknown persons. Name 3 of them.

Three significant forensic databases used in the United States include CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System), and NIBIN (National Integrated Ballistic Information Network). CODIS, managed by the FBI, is a DNA database that contains DNA profiles from convicted offenders, crime scene evidence, and missing persons, facilitating matches among these categories (FBI, 2023). AFIS is used to compare fingerprint entries for criminal identification, allowing law enforcement agencies to identify or eliminate suspects based on fingerprint evidence. NIBIN is a firearm evidence database that enables the comparison of ballistic evidence, such as cartridge cases and bullets, to link crimes involving the same firearm (Bennett, 2017). Each of these databases plays a crucial role in forensic investigation by quickly providing valuable leads and narrowing down suspect pools based on scientific evidence.

In the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), there are two specific indices. One pertains to forensics and the other to offenders. Explain the two different indexes and what they do.

The two primary indices within CODIS are the forensic index and the offender index. The forensic index contains DNA profiles derived from biological evidence collected from crime scenes, which are kept confidential and used solely for investigative purposes. When a new crime scene DNA profile is entered, it is compared against the profiles in the offender index to identify potential matches, thereby linking different crimes or identifying unknown suspects (FBI, 2023). The offender index, on the other hand, contains DNA profiles from convicted offenders, arrestees, or individuals associated with certain criminal activities. This index helps law enforcement link a suspect to other crimes or verify a suspect’s identity when their DNA is obtained from evidence at a crime scene. The separation of these two indices maintains privacy protections and ensures that DNA profiles from convicted individuals are only used within the context of criminal investigations, while crime scene evidence is kept separate for investigative purposes.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In the judicial process, the relevance of evidence plays a pivotal role in determining the admissibility of information presented in court. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 401), evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and this fact is of consequence in determining the action (U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, 401). Relevance ensures that the court’s focus remains on facts that directly impact the case, facilitating a fair trial by excluding extraneous information that could bias or mislead the fact-finder. Courts rigorously scrutinize the relevance of evidence to prevent unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading the jury (McCormick, 2010). This principle preserves the integrity of the judicial process, allowing only evidence that contributes directly to establishing the elements of a crime or defense. Appropriately relevant evidence helps establish facts with clarity, minimizes wrongful convictions or acquittals, and upholds legal standards (Schmolesky et al., 2019). Ultimately, the relevance test acts as a gatekeeper safeguarding the fairness and accuracy of criminal trials.

Nevertheless, not all evidence, even if true, is automatically relevant or admissible. For example, prior criminal convictions that are entirely unrelated to the current case tend to be irrelevant because they do not pertain to the specific issues being litigated. Courts often exclude such evidence to prevent prejudice, as articulated in People v. Carter (1985), because it might lead to unfair bias rather than reliable factual determination. Similarly, personal beliefs or political affiliations of the defendant, unless explicitly linked to the crime, are irrelevant and potentially prejudicial, as in People v. Williams (2001). Such evidence can distract the jury from the facts relevant to the crime and may invoke biases that distort fair judgment. The exclusion of these irrelevant evidence types is grounded in the principle that justice must rely solely on material facts directly connected to the case.

Forensic databases significantly enhance law enforcement’s ability to identify and connect suspects and crime scenes. The FBI’s CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) is a comprehensive DNA database consisting of two main components: the forensic DNA database and the offender DNA database. The forensic index contains DNA profiles from biological evidence collected from crime scenes, while the offender index compiles DNA profiles from convicted individuals, arrestees, and other suspects (FBI, 2023). The forensic index allows law enforcement to compare evidence from different crimes and identify serial offenders or link cases to specific individuals. The offender index supports suspect identification by matching a suspect’s DNA to profiles in the database, thus assisting in confirming or refuting suspect involvement. Additionally, AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) assists with fingerprint analysis, providing rapid comparisons against fingerprint repositories, while NIBIN (National Integrated Ballistic Information Network) links firearm evidence such as cartridge casings and bullets (Bennett, 2017). These databases bridge the gap between biological, physical, and trace evidence, revolutionizing forensic investigations with speed and accuracy.

Within CODIS, the forensic and offender indices serve distinct yet complementary functions. The forensic DNA index holds DNA profiles derived from biological evidence collected at crime scenes, which are used primarily for investigative links and crime resolution. These profiles are maintained to safeguard privacy and are not directly linked to specific individuals unless they are connected to a crime (FBI, 2023). Conversely, the offender index contains DNA profiles from individuals convicted of crimes, representing a database of known offenders. When a new DNA profile from evidence is entered into the forensic index, it is compared against the offender index to identify possible matches, which can link serial crimes or help identify unknown suspects (FBI, 2023). This separation ensures that personal privacy is protected while maximizing the investigative utility of the DNA profiles in both indices. The two indices collectively enhance the efficiency of forensic investigations, enabling rapid comparisons and facilitating the identification of suspects and linked crimes.

References

• Bennett, R. (2017). Forensic ballistics: Understanding NIBIN and firearm evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(3), 756–763.
• FBI. (2023). CODIS: The Combined DNA Index System. Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis
• McCormick, J. (2010). Evidence in criminal trials. Law and Justice Journal, 5(2), 13–29.
• Schmolesky, T., Harris, H., & Van Dyke, K. (2019). Principles of evidence and trial procedure. Criminal Justice Review, 44(4), 319–344.
• People v. Carter, 170 Cal. App. 3d 618 (1985).
• People v. Williams, 88 Cal. App. 4th 818 (2001).