respond to the following discussion board posts:
1- Cases are lost on very minor instances like lack of credibility of witnesses. When a judge or the jury loses credibility on a witness, no matter how credible their evidence was it becomes impossible to retain credibility or gain any interest from the court. The most common sources of information are witnesses and victims. What someone sees, hears, smells, or touches carries great weight in the courtroom. Defense lawyers challenge all circumstantial evidence as unreliable. Circumstantial evidence is all evidence other than eyewitness testimony. The reality is that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence available to the investigator and prosecutor. The inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony are the materials from which defense lawyers build cross-examinations. An investigator should begin to worry when eyewitness information does not bear any inconsistencies. No two people experience an event using the same senses. No two perspectives are ever the same. Gross descriiptions should be very similar in content, but the fine details will vary from witness to witness.
An investigator turns first to witnesses and victims as sources of information when beginning to attempt to answer the who, what, when, where, and sometimes why and how of a crime. Witnesses and victims provide the first leads of the investigation, the descriiptions of persons, places, events, and things. As hard as witnesses and victims may try to provide the information that the investigator seeks, they are not trained observers, and their recall may be sporadic and general rather than concise and specific. Investigators have the responsibility to determine what crime was committed, the avenues of entrance and exit used by the criminal, and the possible location of forensic evidence. It is the forensic evidence left behind that will allow the investigators to place both the suspect and the victim at the scene of the crime and to reconstruct the events that led up to and occurred during and after the offense.
Every investigator needs to appreciate what forensic technicians and laboratory scientists do, how they do it, and where they do it, for they are an important part of the investigative team and may make the difference between a successful and failed investigation as well as a successful and failed prosecution. Investigators can lose credibility before a judge by their physical presentation like the way they are dressed.
2 – There are two key factors when the trier of fact considers an investigators credibility. The first is professionalism of the individual, and the second is honesty. These two characteristics are what defense teams will try to disprove in order to sway the minds of the jury. These tactics are meant to illicit a certain response or to spread doubt about what the investigator is testifying to.
Professionalism lends credibility to an investigator by showing the trier of fact that the case was managed by an individual who knows what they are doing. Judges and juries are more likely to believe and rely on testimony and evidence provided from an investigator if they believe the individual acted in a manner appropriate to their job. Professionalism can be depicted in two ways, by following proper procedure and by ensuring thoroughness throughout the investigation. Following procedure shows the trier of the fact that the investigator came upon information and evidence through valid methods, while thoroughness exhibits that the investigator uncovers every facet and has extensively considered each part of the investigation.
Honesty is the second key to proving the investigator is reliable. An investigator needs to be trusted to do the right thing, and by testifying to the truth of the case, this allows the trier of fact to be able to rely on the investigator to not mislead the truth. Demonstrating honesty is difficult to do in words, so the documentation and records the investigator keeps are the best way to prove this trait. It is important to write down everything that occurs during an investigation and to include time stamps and signatures. This timeline can be used to establish the genuineness of an investigator when describing their role in a criminal case. Included in these records is testimony by an individual as to the truthfulness of their statements. For the investigator, these records are typically in the form of affidavits, or reasons why the investigator has the suspicion in the first place. When it comes to cases that required a warrant, having a warrant demonstrates that an impartial magistrate was compelled by the evidence sworn by the investigator to exist. This establishes a history of honesty to the trier of fact in the case and improves the chances of the prosecution getting the outcome they desire.
