Evidence in Serious Crime Cases

Introduction

In serious crime cases such as murder and distribution of drugs, evidence forms a basis of establishing, as a proof, that a defendant committed a crime. In a court of law, although prosecutors have a burden of establishing that a crime was committed and a particular person, the defendant, was directly involved as an offender, the jury or a judge in a bench have to uphold beyond-a-reasonable doubt to convict for serious crime. For instance, in case of a confession used as evidence in a case, admissibility criteria need to be met. The proof of evidence works predominantly to advance seeking for truth and fairness, although there is argument holding that proof guidelines are basically aimed at dealing with the danger of witness deceptive nature. Based on the argument, this discussion is driven by whether function of juries should expanded to encompass evaluation of evidence of confessions that include whether it is admissible or not to the case. The basis of the argument is on whether concern that confession evidence might results in miscarriage of justice.

Standard of Proof

Ideally, evidence eliminate uncertainty by establishes as a proof that a crime was committed and secondly, the defendant committed the crime. However, elimination any doubt in relation to the truthfulness of the inferences derived on a crime is not a one-dimensional. Standards of proof vary. For instance, police can search or make an arrest if they have a probable cause to commit a crime as justification. On the other hand, beyond a reasonable doubt lies with jury. Jurors have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed the said crimes. One approach of establish and eliminating any uncertainty relating to crime committed and whether the defendant is guilty or not, is examining the evidence. Scholars have argued on use of testimony and admissibility of confessions as well as respective level of proof. According to Walton (2010), relevance of the evidence in the court of law lies with respective logical connection to the fact intended to establish. Admissibility of confession into evidence depends on the way it was obtained, that is, it was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, the relevancy of confession has raised a lot debate. For one, confession by a particular person in relation to a crime committed in a manner that putting self directly in a crime committed is a damaging piece of evidence. There have been reports of coercion by police and investigating person of using unorthodox means that include using inhuman techniques to interrogate and obtain confession from a person standing charges to have committed serious offences. Sections 76 (2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) highlight that confession is inadmissible in a court of law if it was obtained by oppression that include being threatened, treated inhumanely, and torture or in a manner that makes it unreliable.

On this view, standards of proof are principally aimed at eliminating any doubt held by jury and ensuring there is no miscarriage of justice. Lack of structured statutory law such as right to jury captured in a constitution but rather governed by ordinary Act of the Parliament meaning it is subject to parliament and can be amended or abolished at any time. Moreover, although the Juries Act 1974 outlines the establishment and the composition of a jury, the function is largely to weighed up the evidence and determine the facts of a case. However, in England and Wales, at a Crown court, the matter of admissibility of evidence is tested by defense in presence of prosecution by in the absence of the jury under section 76 and 78 of PACE. This jury-focused convection has been censored, also researchers in England and Wales have highlighted different clarifications for accuracy-pursuing proof standards despite a few unclear roles of jury.

Evaluation of Evidence of Confession in Serious Criminal cases by Jury

In England and Wales justice system, the eligibility for the jury service has long been grounded on property ownership which disqualified many members of the society. These led the critics criticising the jury system of being “predominantly male, middle aged, middle-minded, and middle class”. Some scholars argue that the jury members comprised of individuals not familiar with legal system and jargon. However, since amendment of Juries Act of 1974 (Juries Disqualification Act 1984), the people eligible for the services has since expanded to include a wider composition and individuals of various social classes, gender, backgrounds, and financial status. The jury members are randomly selected from electoral register but certain categories of some people that include members of legal profession, the judiciary, mentally ill, and members of the clergy are ineligible. Some scholars have used the prosecution’s right to stand jury compositions despite abolition the defence’s right of peremptory in 1988, arguing that this prompts possibility of influencing the decision taken by the jury. Although some point to right to challenge for cause in relation to jury’s decision, biasness, or eligibility held by both prosecution and defence sides, in practice, this right is limited. For example, in the case Magill (appellant) v. Porter (respondent) where the defendant had organised and ran a scheme that involved purchasing houses at very low prices by the council residents, the prosecution argued it was done as re-election campaigning strategy aimed at increased her chances. The scheme was deemed illegal and in violation of the election ethics and hence, if investigation prove illegality and violation purported by the scheme, Porter would be liable to £31 million in personal liability. However, the issues became whether decision taken by investigation would be subject to press reporting and conference that initially had appeared to be biased. The House of Lords established the issues of biasness by inquiry on whether a “fair minded and informed observer” would hold a view of possibility of biasness.

The issues of whether jury are capable to understand legal jargon and applicability of law that include jurisdiction and basis has been raised. A survey demonstrated that 38 percent of cases which had jury had found defendant not guilty. The findings draw a depiction that huge segments of the citizens were unfit to participate in jury duty. The indication was that jury had evolved to, in Lord Devlin's assertion, moderately aged, center disapproved and white collar category to getting overwhelmingly youthful, jobless or manual laborers. Given that England and Wales justices systems is grounded on traditions and precedent rulings, and hence lacking in structure written framework to refer to, some scholars argue that jury may be less equip to exploit the wider justice. The gaping flaw in the jury system was that people could easily exempt or fail to show up to the service by giving out a simple claim such as being needed in office or having pre-booked holiday. These resulted in widespread perception that illiterate, feckless, and unemployed individuals held jury duty and service in entirety. The middle-class opt-out flaw changed in 2004, and now everyone is oblige to doing jury duties as civic duty for all irrespective of social class, religious beliefs, race, occupation, or cultural background, unless they have compelling reasons. Pointing on the case of a man who wrote to the Southampton Crown Court asserting his unfitness for juror tasks in a trial for assault and dangerous driving, stating, "I hold extreme prejudices against homosexuals and black/foreign people and couldn't possibly be impartial if either appeared in court." Although the man was dismissed not to be a jury member, the issues raised questions of racism, homophobe, and holding extreme beliefs and view undermines the larger jury system, and hence, to some extent holding justice hostage. The question on whether having diversity in views among the juror members that include including individuals from different education levels and socio-economic status would elevate justice or results in its miscarriage. For instance, if an individual is being prosecuted in court of law for holding extreme views either religious or homophobic and admitted to such, raises the issues of whether the defendant would receive justice if jury members hold different views. On contrary, if juror hold similar views and bases their beliefs in arriving in verdict, would be fair to the victim?

Another concern facing jury is jurors researching their case on internet or connecting with defendant via social media platforms. In this technological age where looking for information or facts on internet has become an instinct, there is a risk of jury members befriending defendants through social media, Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram that might led sympathising and influence their view on the case. In a Attorney General vs Dallas case, High Court judges that include Lord Judge and Lord Chief Justice found Theodora Dallas guilty in contempt of court. Mr Dallas, a former psychology lecturer, had carried out an online search about a criminal defendant while serving as a juror. After discovering what Mrs Dallas had done, the judge had to halt the case. This worry about jury being influenced by outside views, personal beliefs or internet facts in an altogether varying way compared to the past broadcast alarm that jurors were regularly illiterate and jobless themselves, or driven by third party views on taking different decisions. One specific perspective emerged from the exoneration of a Mr. Morris in a homicide case in 1993 which incited a series of broadcast reports concerning ways in which jury were illustrative of a “progressively less enlightened and untamed populace” that was deliberated in opposition to conviction. Individual jury members may have a bias towards the guilty or otherwise of a defendant, but that bias may be militated when their views are debated with their peers and they become persuaded otherwise. This desire underlines the significance of members of the jury acting all things considered in the undertaking of arriving at a decision, working emphatically as a body and not only independently, to forestall preference contaminating the considerations for the situation. All these and other cases of misconducts among jurors with damning methods of accessing information raises concern if truth is actually of concern when pursuing these criminal cases of confession. The unclear responsibilities of the juries in England and Wales judicial systems have resulted to these misfits. Media houses have also play a greater role when they take part in outsourcing the proceedings of criminal case, and the same information has been a source of scrutiny by the jury. Therefore, it is important that the jury be educated on their roles before taking up a case, or all together be eliminated to avoid poor judgments.

Confession in Justice System

According to Auld, everybody ought to be qualified for jury administration, aside from the intellectually abnormal individuals, and nobody ought to be pardoned starting at right yet just upon great motivation. The Criminal Law in England and Wales highly protect the accused to illogical limits with arguments that the most probable individuals to commit crime are those of a lower social status and possess attitudes of subordinations thus can be easily coerced to make confession by threats or by paltry incentives. Going by the assertion, investigating officers can combine interrogating techniques such as psychological games and vulnerability of a suspect to get a confession. For instance, individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds can easily be coerced into making a confession on a case. False confessions are categorised into three voluntary, compliant, and persuaded. Using psychological coercion, the investigators can trick suspect into confession by lying that they already have enough evidence or eye-witness placing him/her where the crime occurred but ‘just’ want the suspect’s version. In people v. Gurule (2002) murder case, the accomplice had given a confession stating the defendant was the killers. The investigators who wanted to put the defendant in the scene of the crime lied saying they had enough evidence to charge and convict the defendant for murder. The defendant, then, told the police his friends were the ones who had committed the murder. The defendant’s confession put him at the scene of the crime, and hence, used against him. Worryingly, drug addict and people with mental problem tend to confess to crimes so as to get out the police station or to be left alone. In the Teresa De Simone murder case, Hodgson had confessed to killing her and was convicted. However, the DNA evidence done in march 2009 led to exoneration and release of Mr Hodgson after serving 27years in prison. The DNA analysis of the preserved semen samples, the police named David Lace as the killers. Although Mr Lace had confessed to the murder in 1983, the police refused to belief him because Mr Hodgson had confessed and found guilty of the crime. It was later established that Mr. Hodgson was a pathological liar and had tendency of confessing to ‘crimes’ that never happened.

Research has found that one in 10 teenagers in the age bracket of between 14 and 16 years tend to confess to offences the did not do in order to protect their friend(s). Similarly, a study conducted by Frenda et al. indicates that people deprived of sleep are 4.5 times more likely to confess falsely to a crime. Therefore, collective these false admission have a disastrous effect on the legal system and pursuit of justice. Without proper structures that include individuals who can see through the coerced confession, a defendant might be found guilty even through s/he did not commit the said offence. Therefore, it is not fair to allow juries to consider these sorts of confessions. In addition, the absence of a right to appeal in criminal cases in the Principle of Confession Proof Law of England and Wales, influences judges to play safe and not to admit any questionable evidence.

Conclusion

The law of evidence, also, governs what is admitted to proof a crime was committed and establishing link of a particular person to the crimes. When searching for truth, the underlying issues in evaluating evidences of confession by a jury is whether s/he can be trusted to provide a fair verdict. Since there is no particular way to determine that the jurors will be truthful, trite law is involved in providing expertise in determining the competence of the jurors in testifying factual matters. The complexity of the England and Wales law relating to confession evidence is depicted in the judicial system rooted on the traditions. Socio-economic status was a basis of being a jury member where, initial property ownership was used for eligibility but as time changed, the jury services leaned to ‘poor’, ‘jobless’, and illiterate with a perception that they would not understand legal expression, concept, and jargon. High prevalence of false confession has pressured the justice system to invite an argument of expanding the duties of jury to evaluate and determine admissibility as evidence that, currently, lies mainly with prosecution. Miscarriages of justice have been witnessed within the law relating to confession evidence in England and Wales where those individuals selected in the jury have been from the onset bias. It is as a result of poor changes since the conception of a jury. However, jury representation has not incorporated such changes and resulted to poor judgments and biasness of confession evidenced criminal cases. Lastly, jurors have a record of accessing non-essential information contrary to the principles set forth by the judicial systems of England and Wales. Jurors have been identified to seek further evidence beyond one provided in court proceeding from phones, media outlets and impermissible contact with someone related with the case. As a result, convictions might be discovered hazardous where there is any possibility that the litigant has been unfavorably influenced in any way by the jury's introduction to incidental material. Therefore, juries need to be enlightened on their roles and guidelines when representing such criminal cases of confessions, or altogether be eliminated from the judicial systems of England and Wales. Hence, further miscarriages of justice due to complexities of the laws of confessions and the lack of honesty and truth among jurors.

Looking for further insights on Human Rights and Parliamentary Sovereignty? Click here.

Bibliography

Wodage, W.Y., 2014. Note: Burdens of Proof, Presumptions and Standards of Proof in Criminal Cases. Mizan Law Review, 8(1), pp.252-270.

Allen, R.J. and Stein, A., 2013. Evidence, probability, and burden of proof. Ariz. L. Rev., 55, p.557.

Primus, E.B., 2015. The future of confession law: Toward rules for the voluntariness test. Mich. L. Rev., 114, p.1.

Bicak, A.V., 2001. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, S. 76 (2): Re-Emergence of the Involuntariness Test. The Journal of Criminal Law, 65(1), pp.85-92.

Lord Judge CJ, ‘ Jury Trials ’ , Judicial Studies Board Lecture, November 2010, reported at

Parry, R.G., 2007. ‘An important obligation of citizenship’: language, citizenship and jury service. Legal Studies, 27(2), pp.188-215.

Lloyd-Bostock, S. and Thomas, C., 1999. Decline of the" Little Parliament": Juries and Jury Reform in England and Wales. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(2), pp.7-40.

Lloyd-Bostock, S., 2011. The jury in the United Kingdom: Juries and jury research in context. Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice, p.349.

Ellison, L. and Munro, V.E., 2010. Getting to (not) guilty: examining jurors' deliberative processes in, and beyond, the context of a mock rape trial. Legal Studies, 30(1), pp.74-97.

Lloyd-Bostock, S., 2011. The jury in the United Kingdom: Juries and jury research in context. Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice, p.349.

Bartels, L. and Lee, J., 2013. Jurors using social media in our courts: Challenges and responses. Journal of Judicial Administration, 23, pp.35-57.

Frenda, S.J., Berkowitz, S.R., Loftus, E.F. and Fenn, K.M., 2016. Sleep deprivation and false confessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(8), pp.2047-2050.

Hedley SM, “England and Wales: A Judicial Perspective” [2019] Eastern and Western Perspectives on Surrogacy 135