On July 12, Mr. Mikkelson reported the burglary of his house, where he lived with his wife and adult daughter. A DVR, iPad, bottle of Maker’s Mark and the daughter’s diamond necklace were stolen. Such evidence as Mr. Mikkelson’s daughter’s ex-boyfriend’s fingerprints were found on the furniture inside the house and on the shattered basement window glass, which was probably the criminal’s entrance to the building. Mr. Brewer is likely to be convicted of the burglary due to the strong evidence of his fingerprints and a reasonable motive of getting back what, in his opinion, belongs to him.
First, it is vital to understand the story of Ms. Mikkelson, Mr. Mikkelson’s daughter, and her ex-boyfriend, Mr. Brewer. A significant piece of evidence that police have collected is Mr. Brewer’s fingerprints, which were given by him to Detective Sommer voluntarily. These fingerprints match the ones found on the shattered basement window glass. Mr. Brewer previously had access to Mikkelson’s house as Ms. Mikkelson’s boyfriend, so that would be natural to find his prints inside the house.
However, his thumbprint was found on the broken window’s glass, on the outer side of it. The other fundamental aspect of the evidence is that the print was new; due to the weather conditions, such proofs fade away quickly. Its quality was undisturbed, as well as the quality of his prints inside the house. This is highly unlikely that these fingerprints were old, and Mr. Brewer left them during his interaction in the house when he was in a relationship with Ms. Mikkelson. Detective Sommer has found the stolen necklace in a pawnshop. Ms. Mikkelson received it from her boyfriend and refused to give it back to him after the breakup. The essential aspect is that Mr. Brewer asked her to return the necklace.
As was mentioned, Mr. Brewer did not receive his present back, so if he did not commit the burglary, his fingerprints could not be there. The possible verdict is to convict Mr. Brewer of the crime because all the evidence points out to him. The potential issue that may surface during the investigation is that besides the necklace, such items as a DVR, iPad, and a bottle of Maker’s Mark were stolen. If Mr. Brewer was the one who committed the crime, he aimed to take back the present he gave to Ms. Mikkelson. In this case, why did he take the other possessions and what drove him are rational problems. This may question the assumed verdict and require further investigation. It is possible that he did it deliberately for the police not suspect him, as well as giving his fingerprints voluntarily could be a step to show his innocence too. However, this issue may surface at a particular stage of the trial process and could evoke doubts about the verdict.
Moreover, when Taylor Adams asked Detective Sommer whether there was any correlation between a suspected giving fingerprints voluntarily and a more lenient verdict, she said she had no idea. Knowing whether there is any pattern in suspected behavior would help the case and either convict Mr. Brewer or start doubting the possibility of him being guilty. The admissibility of evidence is its relevancy, competency, and materiality (FindLaw’s team, 2019). Mr. Brewer’s fingerprints are relevant evidence because they may prove him guilty. Especially the fact that they are new and their quality is undisturbed. It is a piece of physical and credible evidence that points out the suspected possible involvement in the crime.
The evidence is sufficient to arrest Mr. Brewer but has some gaps. For instance, it is fundamental to hear the suspected out and determine where he was on July 12. Additionally, it is crucial to receive strong evidence of his words as well as understand why his fresh fingerprints were in Mikkelson’s house and the window glass. Miranda is a right of an arrested person to remain silent for their words not be used against them and the right to have an attorney (Miranda rights, n.d.). Miranda may impact this case so that all this information may not be collected, which may lead to his conviction.
The issue of Mr. Brewer being silent may prove him guilty because all the evidence points out his involvement in the crime. This will help reach a verdict because there would be no contra-argument to acquisitions. A stolen DVR, iPad, and a bottle of Maker’s Mark will not help the jury conclude because it makes to question the reason for that. However, the stolen items may be Mr. Brewer’s plan to deceive the police. The determined verdict is more likely to be a conviction of Mr. Brewer for the burglary of the Mikkelson house. The reason for that is strong evidence, such as his fingerprints in the building and on the shattered window glass. Furthermore, he asked for the necklace previously and did not receive it, so he aimed to get it back, which was his possible motive.
In conclusion, Mr. Brewer is likely to be guilty of the burglary of the Mikkelson house. His fingerprints on it and the broken window glass prove the decision right. Moreover, all the prints were new and undisturbed quality, which makes the chance that they were left during Mr. Brewer and Ms. Mikkelson’s relationship impossible. He has already asked his ex-girlfriend to return the necklace, and she declined, so getting back what, in his opinion, belongs to him is a possible motive.
References
FindLaw’s team. (2019). Evidence: The concept of “admissibility.” FindLaw.
Miranda rights. (n.d.). MirandaRights.org.