The special balancing test used in evaluating the admissibility of prior uncharged felony convictions of a defendant who takes the stand
The prior convictions of a defendant who takes the stand usually have only slight relevance to the current prosecution but can have an emotional impact upon the juries (Hails, 2009, p. 60). Under the current legislation, even the relevant evidence cannot be admitted by the court if its probative value is lower than the hazard of the juries’ prejudice. The special balancing test can be used for evaluating the admissibility of the prior convictions by weighing their probative value against the possibility of unfair prejudice.
In case if a defendant decides to take the stand, the evaluation of his or her trustfulness as a witness becomes meaningful and requires the implementation of the balancing test. The main parameter of the test is the evidentiary value of the previous convictions. According to the main principle of the balancing test, “if the evidence is even slightly more prejudicial than probative, then the judge must find it inadmissible” (Garland, 2006, p. 376).
For instance, the previous conviction for murder would be inadmissible for the homicide trial because the chances that the prejudice occurs are too high. At the same time, the prior conviction for embezzlement can be regarded as admissible for the same case having only minimal emotional impact upon the juries. Under FRE Rule 309 (a)(2), prior convictions for false statements are automatically considered as admissible and do not even require application of the balancing test.
The balancing test is used for weighing the probative value of prior convictions against the hazards of the juries’ unfair prejudice in cases when their evidentiary value is doubtful.
The pretrial identification procedures and examples of illegal pretrial identifications
The pretrial identification procedures can have a significant impact upon the due process of the in-court identification. The major types of pretrial identification procedures include the lineup, showup and photo array. The necessary rules of conducting these procedures need to be observed for preventing the risks of illegal and false pretrial identifications.
The results of the pretrial identification procedures cannot be admitted by the court in case if they are recognized as violating the major legislative regulations, unnecessarily suggestive or compliant with another type of mistaken identification. If the Sixth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are not violated but the defense manages to prove the existence of suggestive inducement during the pretrial identifications, both pretrial and in-court identifications can be recognized as objectionable. Thus, the results of pretrial identifications are illegal when the basic right for counsel as a part of the due process is violated or the procedures are recognized as unnecessarily suggestive.
“When a defendant raises a question about the suggestiveness of a pretrial identification procedure, the trial court must first determine if the identification procedure was unnecessary and suggestive” (Garland, 2006, p. 335). Thus, the suggestiveness of lineups or showups is insufficient for defining the results of procedures as inadmissible. The results of the lineup or showup procedures would be recognized as inconsistent statement in case if a witness points at a different person as the criminal (Hails, 2009, p. 232).
Taking into account the significance of the pretrial identifications for the following trial, the observation of the Amendments and the related regulations is crucial for preventing the cases of illegal identifications and inadmissible mistakes in the following procedures.
Due process and exclusions that can result from obtaining coerced confessions
The use of coercion for retrieving the confession violates the due process of law. Only freely and voluntarily given confession is defined as reliable and can be used by the court. Taking into account the difficulties of defining the voluntariness of confession, the Supreme Court of the United States requires implementation of the principle of the totality of the circumstances for evaluating the compliance of every confession with the legislative regulations and its reliability on a case-by-case basis.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment indicates that the confession has to be freely and voluntary made. If the confession was received through using physical force and/or psychological pressure, it cannot be admitted by the court. If the accused has been physically mistreated before making a confession, the confession cannot be used as evidence. The restriction on the use of psychological pressure is consistent with a wide range of methods implemented for creating the conditions of mental stress for the accused.
These include the promise of rewards in case if the confession is made, mentioning members of the defendant’s family and other manipulative interrogation techniques. The case Miranda v. Arizona is known for imposing the requirement that “police inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning” (Garland, 2006, p. 230). The Mirranda rule requires that the suspect’s rights for the counsel and keeping silent be announced before the beginning of the interrogations. This procedure decreased the number of claims of mistreatment during the custodial interrogations and became a part of the exclusionary rule for the confessions an statements made by the accused if the Mirranda rule is violated.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Miranda procedures need to be observed for receiving a confession without the implementation of the physical or psychological coercion.
Reference List
Garland, N. (2006). Criminal evidence (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hails, J. (2009). Criminal evidence. (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.