(CJ Paper) 007 Criminal Evidence

007 Criminal Evidence

As advanced as our criminal evidence laboratories are these days, they may never exceed the standards of technology found throughout the James Bond 007 movie series. In the previews to the 007 movie, “The World is Not Enough”, they paid homage to the character “Q”, as played by Desmond Llewelyn (b 1913 – d 1999), ending with his quote of, “Now pay attention, 007. I have always tried to teach you two things. First, never let them see me. [James Bond asking, “And the second?”] The second. Always have an escape plan.” An escape plan, in the collection of criminal evidence could be perceived as playing one’s own devil’s advocate while collecting the evidence – asking oneself, if I collect the evidence in this manner, is it going to truly make a difference by being admissible in the Court of Law; otherwise, more harm than good can be had if the collected process is tainted in any sense of the fashion.

In our class, we are given the following scenario to explore:

Mary Ellis, a widow, lives in a townhouse that she shares with her adult son, William, who does not pay rent. Mrs. Ellis awakens on a Saturday morning and goest to her walk-in closet, where she finds a man whom she recognizes as a neighbor, Clyde Stevens, lying on the floor unresponsive. Mrs. Ellis calls 911. Minutes later, police and EMS personnel arrive. Mr. Stevens is pronounced dead from an apparent stabbing, as he has a large butcher knife protruding from his back. Mrs. Ellis, a senior citizen, is transported to the hospital for observation, quite distraught.

Police establish a crime scene and call for detectives and crime scene specialists, who arrive and begin to investigate. Detectives begin a canvass and interview Clyde Steven’s wife, Sheila. Mrs. Stevens tells police that William Ellis has entered her townhouse several times unannounced and on one occasion appeared to be trying to ge6t into her bed. Mrs. Stevens gives the police consent to search the house for any potential evidence that might identify her husband’s killer.

Crime scene investigators actively process the scene. In William’s bedroom, technicians develop a blood fingerprint adjacent to a light switch, using an amino acid stain, after locating the print using the absorptive properties of blood and a portable argon laser. The crime scene investigator photographs the print and recovers a sample of the blood for DNA analysis. The print is from the right index finger of William Ellis, and DNA analysis matches the blood to Clyde Stevens. On the basis of this and associated evidence from the Stevens and Ellis residences, an arrest warrant is issued for William Ellis. William is arrested in Utah and extradited to Illinois to stand trial. The lawyer files a motion to exclude evidence.

To thoroughly understand what is going on here, it helps to break it down piece by piece:

Mary Ellis, a widow, lives in a townhouse that she shares with her adult son, William, who does not pay rent. The fact that William does not pay rent should not be a huge factor here because he is her son, but, because he is an adult son, he should have a certain degree of privacy even though he is not paying rent. Curious though, too, is why an adult child is still living with his parent; it is not the expected norm of society and, often, an adult child still living with his/her parents would indicate some degree of mental incapacity/disorder/illness. What was the mental status of William Ellis and why was he requiring living arrangements still with his mother? Mrs. Ellis awakens on a Saturday morning and goes to her walk-in closet, where she finds a man whom she recognizes as a neighbor, Clyde Stevens, lying on the floor unresponsive. Some questions occur here, for example: How does Mrs. Ellis seem to sleep through an entire event begging on the premise that, before Mrs. Ellis would go to bed in the first place, she would have more than likely gone to her closet before changing her clothes to her night clothes before retiring for the night? How does someone that she knows ends up in HER bedroom? And, the fact that it is her BEDROOM, does that likely suggest that she might have been intimate at some point in time with Mr. Stevens? Also, nowhere is it mentioned for how long Mr. Stephens was dead. Mrs. Ellis calls 911. Okay, while this is an expected reaction, is this a more staged event after the fact? After all, I am still having trouble understanding how Mrs. Ellis didn’t hear anything and suddenly “discovered” the body after she woke up in the morning. And, if it is staged, is it done to protect herself or, even possibly, her son? And, what is she protecting about her son? Was this, in a sense, a sense of duty or moral obligation to keep the morally weak (perhaps William) from doing evil? (Johnson and Wolfe, pg 12) Minutes later, police and EMS personnel arrive. Again, this is an expected reaction with the policing and EMS authorities in any area these days. Mr. Stevens is pronounced dead from an apparent stabbing, as he has a large butcher knife protruding from his back. Should I say, duh, here??? This does seem to state the obvious since Mr. Stephens had a butcher knife in his back and, apparently, wasn’t discovered by Mr.s. Ellis until she awoke in the morning. However, no mention was made of the time frame. Having found my own husband dead in our apartment a little over two years ago in The Woodlands, Montgomery County, Texas, the Justice of the Peace Judge was called to make the pronunciation of his death, which took about an additional hour for her to arrive at the scene and it was another few hours before the coroners arrived at the scene before he was finally taken away. Mrs. Ellis, a senior citizen, is transported to the hospital for observation, quite distraught. A comment here: Although Mrs. Ellis is transported to the hospital because of her mental status (being “quite distraught”), no mention was mentioned if the paramedics had to sedate her and/or (especially before they sedated her, if indeed she was) whether or not a statement was taken from her. It is said that a statement of confession, even in the initial moments at the scene, are admissible as facts in the Court of Law. If Mrs. Ellis is in a distraught state of mind, it would be interesting to explore whether or not, even if she did give permission for the police to investigate her home, if that would be allowable; although, by pure invitation of the police and EMS in her home to see the deceased Mr. Stevens in her closet, she probably gave them permission by invitation.

Police establish a crime scene and call for detectives and crime scene specialists, who arrive and begin to investigate. With my experience of my own husband being found dead in our own apartment two years ago, this seems out of place. It would seem that the crime scene should have been established upon arrival and a call for detectives and crime scene specialists to arrive to investigate the crime scene should have been done immediately and during the waiting period of the arrival of the Justice of Peace Judge or death pronunciation authority to make the pronunciation of death of Mr. Stevens official. Because of this statement being made after the statement of the pronunciation of death of Mr. Stevens, I certainly would question as to whether the crime scene was appropriately established immediately upon arrival to prevent from any evidence being tampered with by any unauthorized and untrained personnel. Detectives begin a canvass and interview Clyde Steven’s wife, Sheila. Again, I am hoping that this is done actually while they were waiting for the official pronunciation of death by the official authority, ie the Justice of the Peace Judge. Sheila, Mr. Steven’s wife, certainly should be investigated. Why did she not report her missing husband? Why did she not miss him? Where was she when this was occurring? How intimate was she still with her husband? Did she know of any improprieties that Mr. Stevens might have had with Mrs. Ellis? Mrs. Stevens tells police that William Ellis has entered her townhouse several times unannounced and on one occasion appeared to be trying to get into her bed. Okay, how did William Ellis enter their home? Did he break in? Did he have a key from the Stevens in order to, perhaps, tend to their plants and house when they were away on vacations (for instance) and overstepped his boundaries on using the key at unauthorized times? By giving William Ellis the key (if indeed that is what happened), that may be difficult to prove that he had no permission to be in the house. If William did not break into the house nor use a key, did the Stevens leave their door unlocked (as they often do in the country – after all, we do not know the environment exactly and the distance between the neighbor’s houses), and, if by leaving it unlocked did it actually deny entry to William Ellis? And, if it actually did not deny entry to William Ellis, did he have the malice and aforethought to commit the murder? (Chamelin, pg 133) Mrs. Stevens gives the police consent to search the house for any potential evidence that might identify her husband’s killer. This statement says that she gave the police consent to search “the” house for any potential evidence that might identify her husband’s killer – is this referring to the Stevens’ house (which she has authority to give consent to) or to the Ellis’ house (which she has no authority to give consent to). The way that this is written certainly gives one pause for concern to which house was approval for the consent to search was intended for in this particular case.

Crime scene investigators actively process the scene. This is as they should. The longer evidence is left, the more likely it is to be overlooked and/or tainted in the process. The faster that they can obtain the evidence, the better and fresher it will be. In William’s bedroom (Have they actually obtained a search warrant for this room when they began exploring, investigating, and gathering evidence? Were they actually allowed in his bedroom? Did they have consent from William? There was nothing established that there was probable evidence suggesting that William was at home at the time of the crime in order to establish him at the scene.), technicians develop a blood fingerprint adjacent to a light switch (It is suggested that, because this is a bedroom light (right?) that this light switch was inside the bedroom and not in the hallway, which brings us back to the question as to whether or not they had permission to be in William’s room in the first place.), using an amino acid stain, after locating the print using the absorptive properties of blood and a portable argon laser. Not working in a crime lab, I would have to wonder about the accessibility of the accuracy of the results from this method of obtaining the evidence. Would this be the most accurate method to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the blood and fingerprint associated with the killing of the victim, Mr. Stevens? The crime scene investigator photographs the print and recovers a sample of the blood for DNA analysis. The print is from the right index finger of William Ellis, and DNA analysis matches the blood to Clyde Stevens. Again, how accurate is this method? Are the police authorities collecting this evidence using the most accurate method known, and will it stand up in Court as evidence beyond any shadow of a doubt? On the basis of this and associated evidence from the Stevens and Ellis residences, an arrest warrant is issued for William Ellis. Again, was this legally obtained without a search warrant? William is arrested in Utah and extradited to Illinois to stand trial. Okay, William is arrested in Utah, but was any investigation done to prove that he was at the scene of the crime beyond the “evidence” of the bloody fingerprint? When did William go to Utah? Was there a plane or train or bus ticket that would prove that he left after the estimated time of death of Mr. Stevens (and, by the way, what time did Mr. Stevens die? Was it a slow or fast death?). It would seem that they would prefer building a sound case that would be able to prove guilt of William Ellis beyond any preponderance of a doubt, as is typically required in the criminal court processes. The lawyer files a motion to exclude evidence. There are a lot of unanswered questions of the scenario, as evidenced by my commentaries above. At an initial glance, they have only the bloody fingerprint, which appears to have been retrieved without a search warrant (to cover their butts), and the statement by Mrs. Stevens that William has entered her home on several occasions to substantiate the probability that William Ellis had anything to do with the death of Mr. Stevens, in the first place. Even Mrs. Stevens’ statement is basically hearsay, at this point in time, because Mr. Stevens could not possibly verify this if he is dead, no confirmation or knowledge from Mrs. Ellis of this fact is known, and no known statements from neighbors confirming/verifying this information is known.

There are other questions too, such as:

(1) Will William’s lawyer be successful in having the physical evidence excluded? If so, will the exclusion pertain to all of the evidence, or is there a difference between the evidence collected from the Ellis’ and Stevens’ homes? It is perfectly conceivable that William’s lawyer will be successful based on the fact that a search warrant was obtained for William’s room since William is an ADULT child and is protected under the Fourth Amendment, which asserts that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Schmalleger, pg 151). Without having going into William’s room they had no idea that they would have found a bloody fingerprint; and, because William had a reasonableness of privacy in his room as an adult, the police authorities collecting the evidence, should have secured a search warrant – especially, if William was not there to allow him into his room. Also, the substance behind the “evidence” collected at the Stevens’ home – especially, if they are basing it solely on the statement that Mrs. Stevens made about William coming to her home unannounced and, at one time, tried to get into her bed. Was this with or without Mrs. Stevens in the bed? Who can substantiate her statement? Otherwise, it is just a story waiting to be verified and substantiated. This would be, then, circumstantial evidence because it requires an interpretation to conclude as to what the “evidence” actually indicates (Schmalleger, pg 282), as well as considered hearsay because it is not based upon the personal knowledge of a witness (Schmalleger, pg 286). Although Mrs. Stevens is associated with the murder crime scene as she is Mr. Stevens’ (the victim) wife, but she holds no testimony that would prove as a direct witness to the scene of the crime (only possible presumptions that could lead one to more direct evidences of the crime scene). No other physical evidence is noted in our scenario; however, if there were physical evidence obtained from Mrs. Stevens’ home, it would certainly be admissible because she did give consent to the search of her house. It would be particularly interesting, for example, had the butcher knife been from the Stevens’ home this certainly might show connectivity between the homes and may give some plausibility to Mrs. Stevens’ story, and even more interesting if the knife (from Mrs. Stevens’ home) was found to have William’s fingerprints on it!

(2) What are the legal justifications for a search in this scenario? The most obvious justification for a search in this scenario was the fact that Mr. Stevens was found in the Ellis’ home dead with a butcher knife stabbed into his back, which definitely rules out the likelihood (not the improbability) that Mr. Stevens had killed himself. Often times, the fact that the stab wounds are in the back would indicate that the victim was being chased by his own assailant. There was a death with no one confessing to the murder and no immediate evidence of who the murderer was (ie no one hovering over the body in the act of performing the murder). Although mens rea could be demonstrated through Mrs. Stevens’ statement, it couldn’t be verified to provide validity to the culpability to the actual intent. Additionally, William could always claim justification through a variety of defenses such as necessity, duress, self-defense, and entrapment; as long as the physical or mental elements of the crime cannot be proven, then William could not be necessarily convicted – especially, upon the “evidences” as thus far presented in this scenario. (Siegel, pg 41)

(3) What role(s) do the “exclusionary rule” and “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” have in this scenario? The exclusionary rule is, based upon the Weeks v. U.S. (1914) case-matter wherein a judge agreed with the attorney representing that the client, Weeks, had his Fourth Amendment Rights violated because the investigators had not used warrants in obtaining the evidences to be used in his trial. (Schmalleger, pg 151) The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is based upon the Silverthorne Lumber Co v. U.S. (1918) case-matter wherein a judge agreed with the defense attorney that his client’s Fifth Amendment Rights were violated because of due process – meaning that, just as the evidence illegally obtained for use in a trial cannot be used, nor can case be based upon or derived from evidence of an illegally obtained evidence be implied as evidence in the trial (once evidence has been tainted, it remains tainted). (Schmalleger, pg. 151) John Rawls was quoted once as saying:

“…[T]here are those precepts defining the notion of natural justice. These guidelines intended to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. A conscientious effort must be made to determine whether an infraction has taken place and to impose the correct penalty. Thus a legal system must make provisions for conducting orderly trials and hearings; it must contain rules of evidence that guarantee rational procedures of inquiry. While there are variations in these procedures, the rule of law requires some form of due process: that is, a process reasonably designed to ascertain the truth, in ways consistent with the other ends of the legal system, as to whether a violation has taken place and under what circumstances. For example, judges must be independent and impartial, and no man may judge his own case. Trials must be fair and open, but not to prejudice by public clamor. The precepts of natural justice are to insure that the legal order will be impartially and regularly maintained.”

(Rawls, pgs 209-210)

In this scenario, this means that neither the actual evidence of the bloody fingerprint be used in the potential trial of William, nor could the knowledge of the fact that the bloody fingerprint was taken be used in the potential trial of William be used because it had already been tainted once; therefore, it will always be tainted. It would be unlikely that this case would get past the Grand Jury even if William was arrested in Utah and brought back to Illinois.

and, (4) Would this have been how it should have been proceeded to investigate the crime? There are just way too many questions left unanswered in this scenario and things probably should have been proceeded with more precaution and care than presented in this scenario – especially, with the containment of the scene. A retired police officer in Orange County, California, instructs the importance of the crime scene by emphasizing that the “important process in the investigation of criminal activity should always be taken seriously and conducted in a professional manner.” (Satterfield, pg 77) It is questionable here how professional a manner that the investigation was actually carried out, and the core of professionalism reflects upon the ethics of the officer. (Shusta, Levine, Harris, and Wong, pg 393) He goes further to outline certain steps that must be followed to ensure that they scene remain undisturbed including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: (1) boundary containment of the scene, (2) evidence protection, (3) crime scene diagram, (4) crime scene photography, (5) access control to the crime scene. (Satterfield, pgs 77-83) There was no apparent immediate containment of the scene. Although there is seemingly somewhat a certain degree or level of chaos at any crime scene, it is expected that investigations are begun immediately including the securing of the scene, canvassing those on the scene and those in the surrounding areas, etc.; instead it appears, aside from whisking Mrs. Ellis away to the hospital because of her “distraught” emotions, they waited until after the victim was pronounced dead in order to begin any investigation. It is said that, often times, a killer may remain at the scene of crime to see what happens and/or ensure that his/her victim is truly dead. What if Mr. Stevens’ was recoverable, would they have been able to catch the perpetrator who had attempted to murder him (in that case)???

Collection of evidence should fall upon due diligence and care in the process of collecting evidences to be utilized in the conviction of the right person for the commission of the crime; it should not take a rocket scientist or “Q” from the Bond movies to figure that one out. The Harris County Crime Lab fiascos in the past few years resulting in DNA testings, that were either inaccurately done or not investigated properly, are now finding inmates innocent of their alleged crimes and being released from the Harris County (and surrounding) prisons emphasize the importance of the accuracy of the evidences obtained. How much of the inequities found in these DNA testings is actually due to human error or the lack of appropriate technology may never really be known; however, with the advancements made in technology, and the care in making sure that the quality of the standards and guidelines established of those working in the crime labs will ensure the accuracy of the human factor, will certainly aid in the protection and the accuracy levels of the evidence, as well as the ensurance that the right perpetrator is actually convicted. Perhaps, the motivation of the 007 movies to strive for sheer perfection in their every moves will also wear off on the crime labs and all officers who collect evidences at the crime scenes to strive for their own levels of sheer perfections by playing their own devil’s advocate each and every time that they collect the evidences and ask themselves whether or not what they are collecting at that moment is being collected legally and accurately – or, perhaps, we need to take more lessons from Bond, James Bond!! 


Bibliography


Chamelin, Neil C. (2003). Criminal Law for Police Officers (8th Ed), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.


Johnson, Herbert A. and, Wolfe, Nancy Travis (2003). History of Criminal Justice (3rd Ed.), Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.


Rawls, John (1999). A Theory of Justice (Revised Ed.). Cambridge, Massachussets: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.


Satterfield, (Ret) Lt Phillip M. (2004). The Security Officer’s Field Training Guide (2nd Ed), Lt. Phillip M. Satterfield.


Schmalleger, Frank (2002). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction (Custom Ed) (Taken from Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction (4th Ed Update), Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. (2002).


Shusta, Robert, Deena R Levine, Philip R. Harris, and Herbert Z. Wong (2002). Multicultural Law Enforcement: Strategies for Peacekeeping in a Diverse Society (2nd Ed). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.


Siegel (PhD), Larry J. (2001). Criminology: Theories, Pattern, and Typologies (7th ed). United States: Wadsworth Thompson Learning.