Introduction
This assignment analyses and reviews the procedures in a criminal trial according to the provided illegal study case. The case illustrates the incident of sexual assault conducted on the juveniles over three days. The police have already investigated the matter and revealed the evidence, three separate assaults, and rapes. The reference provides us with an incomplete picture of Bert’s etymology and pieces of evidence from Bland. This paper analyses the provided materials and includes a description of the possible decisions for legal authorities according to the questions raised during the trial procedure.
The Occasion Procedure in Trial
During the investigation, the case has raised several contentious situational issues that must be considered and resolved by the court and other legal authorities. This paper illustrates the possible decisions on all three questions provided in the task, but noteworthy with the lack of information according to the victim’s and other suspects’ testimony and evidence base prosses. Notably, the study case note demonstrates rather mass examples of testimony changes during the preliminary criminal investigation that will cause defined constraints.
Bert’s Motion for Severance
The motion of Bert’s attorney for severance is predictable and makes sense. The attorney would like to exclude the preliminary agreement and actions conducted by the group of individuals from the prosecution of his defendant. If the court grants the defendant’s motion, the trial will not incorporate all these aggravating circumstances into the judicial proceedings (Lippman, 2018). His book combines traditional concepts with thought-provoking cases and fascinating law practice tools. Bert’s attorney also needs to secure the interests of two remaining suspects, whose testimonies can even sabotage his client.
Prosecutor’s Actions Regarding Bland’s Statement
Shortly after the prosecutor filed charges, Bland provides a written statement that Walsh was not present during the rapes. This statement sounds exceptionally controversial because it raised the question of the presence of Bland in every three rapes or conducts the question of the statement’s credibility. The witness must tell the court only the facts that he perceived. The requirement of personal knowledge guarantees more reliable information for the court. It underlies the rule of primary evidence, the law against hearsay evidence, and the regulation against testimony based on inferences.
It is sometimes tough to distinguish in a witness’s testimony between facts that he perceived and facts that resulted from his inference, as well as the certainty of particular circumstances. These attributes may affect only the credibility of the witness’s testimony but do not affect the admissibility of that testimony. Under Federal Rule 602, the testimony is only inadmissible by the court if the judge determines that the evidence presented is “insufficient to corroborate the witness’s knowledge” (Kelson, 2017, p.365). The prosecutor has an opportunity to submit the request for the use of sworn testimony as evidence at the preliminary hearing stage of a case.
Most states have legislation permitting the use of this criminal procedure safeguard, where witnesses, due to threats received, change their testimony between the preliminary hearing and the trial itself. The California Legislative Oversight Commission has held that using sworn testimony as evidence at the preliminary hearing does not threaten the judicial process. The Commission justified its position because the witness is present in court and available for cross-examination and that prior testimony is in most cases more truthful than that given later by witnesses.
Bert’s Motion to Mook Regarding
According to the case note, Bert maintains his innocence and provides the witness, who is unavailable to testify because he is currently out of the country. In this case, the court probably could have an opportunity to claim a written statement or in other technical possible ways of connection. The remote method of testifying through technological means is widely used. Most prosecutors consider using video and audio recordings of the testimony of protected persons in court to be particularly effective in preventing them from later changing or retracting their previous testimony. This procedure consists of police officers reading reports in court about witnesses’ testimony during the preliminary investigation.
The law enforcement officers are not essentially involved in the case at hand but merely read out documents prepared by other officers for the court. However, it is noted that Mook has a mountain climbing trip, which could be impossible. If so, the court will probably postpone the next meeting till Mook returns since his etymology causes to be significant for the affair.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the suggested study case lacks information considering the victims and does not provide reports regarding the other two suspects. Bert’s behavior tends to be suspicious and highly strung which can cause certain misbeliefs. His attorney, in his manner, prepares to protect the person who committed the illegal acts but strongly desired impunity. Even Mook’s corroborating testimony apparently will not lead to Bert’s excuse. Bland’s second statement perhaps was caused by threats or some similar issues. That is why it is significantly essential to investigate this incident. The severance should not be considered possible is the constantly evolving suspects’ testimonies, which indirectly confirm their joint involvement in this affair.
References
Lippman, M. (2018). Contemporary Criminal Law: Concepts, Cases, and Controversies. SAGE Publications.
Kelson, J. M. (2017). “Government Admissions and Federal Rule of Evidence 801(D)(2).” Virginia Law Review Association, 356-410. Web.