Chain of Custody So chain of custody is obviously important, but why? I have seen many articles referring to drugs and one where the murder weapon was handled without gloves. But what about other types of evidence being mishandled. For example if a weapon believed used in a crime was in evidence and it was revealed at the time it was taken and stored before forensics in a evidence room that was unsecured, unguarded and other evidence was definitively tampered with. Would that mean the evidence regardless of the follow on forensics has a broken chain of custody? i.e. that department mishandled evidence in general as a practice and that resulted in a blanket dismissal for the time period. Due to bad paperwork practices the case for that evidence was filed (The evidence was sent somewhere else for forensic testing and the paper trail started there). The question is basically if evidence was mishandled, regardless of the evidence type, is that a broken chain of custody and if so does that mean the evidence will be excluded?
Physical evidence must be authenticated to be admissible as evidence in court. In other words, the person seeking to introduce it as evidence must show that it is what it claims to be by some means (there are many legitimate ways to authenticate evidence). A chain of custody is used to authenticate physical evidence. Even if physical evidence can be authenticated sufficiently to be admissible as evidence, evidence that there was a break in a chain of custody could create a reasonable doubt that physical evidence which is key to obtaining a conviction is really evidence that was collected, for example, from a particular crime scene at a particular time. This doubt could provide a basis for an acquittal of a defendant in a criminal trial if that piece of evidence was an important part of the case to show that the defendant was guilty.
There is no hard and fast rule to determine what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the first instance, the judge (or jury, when there is a jury trial) decides this on a case by case basis. If the officer testifies that the matters recorded in the ticket are true because it was the officer's practice to always record accurately what happened in a ticket, this would ordinarily not be grounds for reversal of a conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence, unless other evidence somehow put the officer's testimony in serious doubt (e.g. a social media post clearly putting the officer in another location at the time that the ticket was allegedly issued). Normally, the only kind of evidence that would not result in a ticket being upheld on appeal would be the failure of the officer to testify at all.
This wouldn't be customary and is probably improper, but the judge may have been trying to do you a favor. In the absence of being under oath, the judge could not consider anything said in your closing statement as evidence. If you are under oath, the judge can weigh something you say in your closing statement against the other evidence when making a ruling.
Yes. The jurisdiction I am familiar with is England and Wales. Conviction requires evidence (witness testimony is evidence) which proves the case "beyond reasonable doubt". It is open to the jury to find the witness so convincing that they find that they are sure the defendant committed the crime. In general of course, prosecutors prefer to have some supporting evidence (either additional witnesses, or circumstantial evidence - like DNA.)
Those seeking to work with children should1 have an Enhanced with Barred Lists DBS check which will show (in addition to any unspent convictions, conditional cautions, reprimands, final warnings, and whether they are barred from working with children) any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role. Whether the police consider an arrest that did not progress to a charge being made to be relevant or not is fact-dependant based on (for example) the nature of the allegation, any evidence or information supporting or negating it, what a suspect said in interview and any other information available to them. 1One can check the actual level of check required here
“Anything you say can be used against you in court.” Is what the police say in the USA. “You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?” is what they say in New South Wales. “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” is what they say in England and Wales. And so on. Whether Mark wants to mention that he was robbing a bank on the far side of town at the time is entirely up to him. If he does, and that can be verified it’s likely the murder charges will be dropped and armed robbery charges will be brought instead. Note that in many jurisdictions, if the defence intends to use an alibi defence, the prosecution must be told about it at a very early stage or it can’t be used at all.
Criminal charges are filed and prosecuted by the government, on behalf of the public, and there is no requirement for approval or cooperation by the victim. As a policy matter, a DA may decide to not charge a person in case the victim is unwilling (though less so in cases of domestic violence), perhaps because of the widespread impression that the victim has to "press charges" (which indeed they would have to do in the case of private prosecution, which is no longer allowed in the US). The alleged victim's reddit exchanges on the topic are here. An uncooperative victim does not make a good witness, even if they are compelled to testify. The police statement that they cannot pursue an investigation should not be interpreted as a statement of law, it's probably a statement of policy and practicality.
The evidence will almost certainly be inadmissible And, of course, you will be disbarred and never work as a lawyer again, you might also go to jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Whether the person is convicted or not will depend on the strength of the other evidence the state has. In the notorious case of Lawyer X, Nicola Gobbo was acting as a barrister for a number of Melbourne underworld figures while simultaneously acting as a police informer. A number of those convicted have successfully appealed their convictions on the basis that they didn’t get a fair trial. In their judgement on AB (a pseudonym) v. CD (a pseudonym); EF (a pseudonym) v. CD (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 58 the High Court said: But where, as here, the agency of police informer has been so abused as to corrupt the criminal justice system, there arises a greater public interest in disclosure to which the public interest in informer anonymity must yield. EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.