Admissibility of the different pieces of evidence
Evidence form the core of the manners of investigation because they help the judges to determine the cases in the most preferred way. For evidence to be effective, they must be acclaimed, composed, predictable, secured, confirmed, examined, revealed and made to be more presentable. In these ways, the evidence will be accepted by the court of law and the court of law will be able to rely on them for facts. Evidence is information that varies and these sources can be used to give more information to the court about a certain case. Evidence has its sources of information, for example, the main one being witnesses. The most relevant fact to check whether evidence is visible is its relevance to the particular case.
This scenario is about two individuals, Beatson has been charged with careless manslaughter following the death of Paul who fell from the building while working. They were supposed to secure themselves with the rope but Paul accidentally falls and dies later. The police take the evidence and Beatson is taken to court for careless manslaughter. Beatson tells the police that he tied the rope securing Paul to the chimney of the house but Elizabeth Freeman, who is a neighbor claims that she saw the whole incidence and Paul was not actually tied on the chimney but on the antenna. This thus gives rise to investigation to determine the actual truth of the matter.
The first evidence is when the defense asks the court to look into the statement made by Mr. Beatson to the police concerning his side of the story about what transpired. And according to Beatson, he recorded a statement with the police claiming that he had tied the rope to the chimney of the house roof. Another statement that the defense asks the court to look at is Ms. Katie Frost statement, she is a doctor an according to the notice given from the hospital is that Paul fell 30 meters onto concrete. Mr. Beatson statement cannot be used as evidence but just to show the court of law what transpired over the situation. One cannot stand to be a witness of his own during proceedings. However, in every situation, statements should be written to help the investigators in coming close to the answer. Mr. Beatson thus wrote his statement which he claims he is innocent because he tied the rope to the chimney rope, Paul fell down and was rushed to the hospital and eventually died. According to this case study, Mr. Beaton’s personal statement is not admissible.
When checking at the doctor’s statement, she gave the report of what might have caused the death of Paul in the hospital. As stated earlier, Paul fell from 30 meters on a concrete and died. This statement is too shallow and does not contain much information. For instance, it only explains what caused the death of Paul and the manner in which he died. 1This is an expert, meaning that he gives accounts of what is happening and the causes of certain conditions, these statements are very important to the police and the judges because they are used to investigate about a certain aspect. Thus according to this case study, the statements of the expert doctors are admissible. This is because it contains an expertise message on the cause of a particular situation.
The second evidence for the witness who claimed to have witnessed the scenario, Ms. Freeman. She states that she had seen the rope that supported Paul tied to the antenna and not to the chimney as claimed by Beatson. This is a witness. Courts rely on these witnesses to collect more information about a certain case. Mr. Freeman recorded a statement to the police and this statement can be used to testify that Beatson actually did not tie Paul on the chimney but rather on the antenna. Furthermore, Ms. Freeman claims here that he perceived the witness using her eyesight. Research has shown that this is one of the most relevant witnesses ever, it is even more applicable than the circumstantial evidence. And according to this case, the statement by Ms. Freeman is admissible at this time because it is to be used as a key witness to this case. The police were not able to collect more witnesses because none witnessed the scene .but at this stage of the proceedings, Ms. Freeman’s statement is very important in this case thus graduating it to admissible.
The third evidence, in this case, is the rope. As discussed above, one of the aspects making evidence to be admissible is tangibility. The rope is a piece of tangible evidence that actually was in the scene of the accident. The rope can aid in making the investigators in determining what the problem was like for instance if the rope’s weakness may have caused the fall of Paul or other factors related to the rope and it is very relevant. Besides, the rope is the material object that had some relations to the death of Paul. The rope can be used to prove the death of Paul through falling down from the height, the rope was also used to tie the deceased .with all these reasons, and the rope is admissible evidence.
Additionally, another form of evidence was the report written by the team in the ambulance. These were the first medics to arrive at the scene to serve Paul and to help him stay alive despite the injuries that he got. This team’s report is very important because they are the individuals who arrived first at the scene saw the situation as it is and were in a rush to save the life of Paul. The ambulance team arrived fifteen minutes after the incident and had to first aid Paul. But unfortunately, Paul died later in the evening because of the server wounds and the ribs that pierced the lungs during the fall. This evidence is very critical and important, the police arrived even later after the ambulance, this is to mean that the team had some fresh information regarding the scene of death other situations that the investigators would have used to collect more information about the death of Paul. Thus this evidence is very valid, admissible.
The shoemaker was also another party to be unsuited in this case.in finding out the possible death of Paul, no stone is to be left unturned, all the evidence must be dug into to give any available information regarding the death of Paul. From the rope, the shoe the deceased was putting on is also another evidence. The shoemaker also had his reports regarding the make of his shoes which he states that were suitable for roof work. This note is passed to the lawyer and to Mr. Beatson. According to the scenario, Beatson had earlier told the prosecutor accidentally that the type of shoe sole that Paul had on during his death was actually meant for that particular job. The shoe here is classified according to the material evidence, it assists in narrowing down the information. This evidence is thus admissible.
Nearing the end, the key witness who is Ms. Freeman testifies that she was told by Ms. Margaret Hamilton that Mr. Beatson had tied the rope to an antenna of the TV during the death and says that he did not see the actual fall of Paul. In law, this type of evidence is called hearsay and one of the forms that make evidence to be inadmissible. For example, in this case, Ms. Freeman was actually given the information by Ms. Margaret. In fear say evidence, this is the testimony that is given out of the court with the aim of confirming the truth of a situation which is regularly integrated. This proves that as a witness, Ms. Freeman’s report as evidence is inadmissible.
Beatson testifies that he had tied Paul to the chimney of the house.This statement is therefore admissible because the case seems to lose witness. The witness that was present in the case has stated that she got the information from another source and that she did not actually see the real action.
Experts perform a huge task in ensuring that they explain to the court what the situation is all about at depth and that deeper understanding of the situations can be enhanced. For instance, Mr. Eaton, an expert in matters of shoe grab just confirmed that the shoes Paul was putting on were not actually gripping the surface as required and this might be the cause of Paul’s death. This evidence is very admissible because Amanda is an expert in this field of work.
Also, Amander states that fixing the ribs of Paul through surgically way could have saved him from dying. This is inadmissible. Amander is an expert in shoe grip and has very little knowledge of health matters thus making conclusions about fixing of Paul’s ribs is not effective. This evidence is thus inadmissible.
In conclusion, evidence requires proofs that should enable them to influence the judges’ decisions to be fair. The jury should ensure that they identify admissible and inadmissible evidence before making their final decisions. The evidence used should carry facts that support their credibility. Evidence has admissibility when they are tangible, valid and relevant to the case .all the evidence listed above have certain attributes which enable them to be considered as admissible or inadmissible. These qualities should be checked by the judges to ensure that they make a correct judgment as required. In this case, Ms. Freeman was the key witness but later lost admissibility because of the hearsay, she got information from elsewhere. Experts also are required to make statements on their areas of specialization and are not supposed to make their statements in the fields that they don’t understand