I need some case law?!?

Question

I'm a senior poly sci student taking con law, in class we have mock trials set up and I am defending a man who is accused of rape and murder. He was questioned when it happened and he had a solid alibi. 20 years later, police revisited the case (they don't tell us why) and one of the witnesses of his alibi changed his story (he was in prison and was promised a reduced sentence, the jury didn't know this). The police sent the defendent a letter saying he won a trip and when he replied, they got his DNA off the envelope and it matched the DNA from the scene. The defendant and the victim had an intimate relationship prior to the murder and they had broken up one month before the murder.
We are researching 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment cases, if anyone has any ideas or suggestions for our case, I would appreciate it.

Answer 1

Some short answers here:
1) You can, indeed, impeach the witness who changed his story by introducing the story told 20 years ago and by introducing the promises of a reduced sentence.
2) The DNA evidence, unfortunately, was legally obtained. The police are permitted to trick a person into giving up DNA evidence voluntarily, unless the individual is in a custodial situation at the time he gave it up and was not apprised of his Miranda rights.
3) The prior relationship between the victim and your client can, of course, be introduced, as it may be relevant to motive.

Independent testing of the DNA evidence is certainly warranted here, as you have purported DNA evidence that has been stored for 20 years and may be tainted or degraded. Chain of custody of this evidence, along with conditions under which it was stored for the last 20 years, may be crucial in determining its admissibility.

I am assuming from your statement that the jury did not know of the reduced-sentence promise, that you are working on an appeal, not the trial. If so, then IAC (ineffective assistance of counsel) is certainly a strong appellate issue, as the attorney should have worked to impeach the testimony of the prison inmate.

Feel free to email me if you can narrow the issues you are looking for via case law.

Answer 2

There are TWO "common law"s; the one grows from the other. For reasons that Should become obvious shortly, the Title "common law" was invented by English writers hundreds of years ago to simplify a problem of explaining how a Court can decide something if the King ain't written about it yet. So instead of going into long winded explanations about Why a judge made a decision, or How the Lawyers came up with the choices to let the judge pick from, they invented the TITLE "Common Law" to describe the excuse "but THEY did it"; "they" might be France, or Spain, or Rome, or anyone else whose already done something about whatever the court 'here, now, today' is being asked to decide. If only one previous example in all history exists, then that one decision is "common" and since it was carried out by some government then it was "law" - and if you could find 10 previous examples, but say 3 did one thing but the other 7 did 7 different things, the fact that you got 3 to do the same thing means that thing was obviously more "common" than the other 7, so, obviously, that "must be" the righterer thing to do. That's the Titular version of "common law"; if Your government doesn't have a specific written Annotated Code, Article 1, Section 2, Item 3, Paragraph 4, Clause 5 specifically telling you what precisely to do about something, you find a History Professor and ask them if a problem like this ever came up before and what was done about it. But there's another common law; not a title, but two words 'common' and 'law'; and those are the egg and sperm, respectively, that create the Title. Lawyers have an expression "ab ovum" they use to describe the egg, preferring no-one ask about the sperm and relying on the concept of immaculate conception; the egg evolves into a living critter all by itself, Lady Justice remaining a dumb, blind virgin but somehow her fatherless child AIN'T supposed to be considered IL-legitimate. "Take my word for it. I'm a Lawyer. Close the book." While Historians provide the Egg, the sperm come from the Classroom way across to the other Wing of Universe-city. History and Poetry and Philosophy are books, this side of the building so Paints and Rocks and Chemicals? They go to the other end of hall lest they deface, tear, or burn the Valuable Papers from which Civilized Society Springs. So down THAT end of the building resides dirty, filthy, stinky, sweaty people that take for granted White Phosphorous and Free Air make FWOOSH! Every Time. Without Fail. To a Certainty. And chipping rocks away to make a stone look like a horse causes raining rocks that always fall to the ground and make a noise; Every Time. Without Fail. To a Certainty. And mixing blueberries with red okre make Royal Purple, Every Time. Without Fail. To a Certainty. In this part of the building Laws are identified - Every Time. Without Fail. To a Certainty. and here, as in the farmer's fields and the fisherman's waters, and the herdsman's pastures, Everyone Knows The Laws of gravity, inertia, momentum, constraint, and the biggy Cause And Effect. Back in the Law Library they study Causes that bring about Effects of poverty, crime, sedition, copyright, and all the other man-made complaints that produce man-made problems BUT back in the Science lab they study Physical Effects to discover their Actual Causes. Only one side here can exist without the other; The "Common Law" of History depends upon the common - law of gravity, but it sureasHell don't work the other way around.

Answer 3

I suggest that you look at the 14th amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the constitution. It may be possible to exclude the DNA evidence using the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are essentially mandated on the authority of the 14th amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The 5th amendment helps you there too.

Answer 4

Once he posted the envelope, it became the property of the receipient, along with DNA.

The way to avoid this trap is to seal envelopes with a spong and water. Use distilled water, since they can trace minerals.

If the defendant's DNA was a match, he is guilty, and will be held so in a court of law.

What he should have done is not kill the girl in the first place.

The lawyer's now confined to seeing that he isn't persecuted, beyong the law.
-

Answer 5

Well, it looks like the evidence is hard to refute, so revert to the usual tricks of a legal pretense that if obtained by some sort of deception, it's proper to use a deceptive tactic in return, and to argue the evidence exists only in the real world and has failed the audition for playing a part on the stage known as a court of law.

Answer 6

Can DNA not only be taken with consent unless he has been arrested for the crime they are investigating? So that evidence would be inadmissible. As for the witness who changed his story that would be inadmissible too. Hope this helps a bit. I'm going off English law here though.....I think! lol