Investigation of a Criminal Case

The Federal Governments employs agencies tasked with criminal investigations which are then used for the prosecution of suspects. Investigators obtain evidence and record the same to help prosecutors understand the details of the case. Therefore, it is crucial to have proper investigations to secure a successful prosecution’s case.

1.2 Preliminary Investigations

Preliminary investigations involve receiving a case file detailing the complaint lodged for investigation. In this instance the same was received from the supervisor. The second step is questioning the complainant to gain first-hand information/facts of the case. The same was done in a proper manner in regard to James Davidson who after being contacted came in to the station and gave his statement in an interview room as should be. Information gathered from the same led to Michael Jensen who shared an office with the complainant and further that, the check in question was written to one Jacob Jensen.

The third step is interviewing persons who would have information regarding the incident either possible suspects or prospective witnesses. In this instance Michael Jensen needed to be interviewed. The same was done through a phone call with consent from him where he denied accessing the checkbook in question but gave information that his son was named Jacob and would visit their office regularly.

Still on the third step, the next place with crucial information pertaining to the case was the Bank. The bank was contacted through the branch manager where the check was cashed. Through that interaction a color printout of the image of the person who cashed the check was recoveredand there was noted that the customers were not advised that they were being recorded.

Following up on suspects and witnesses is also crucial especially after discovery of new information. This informed the second interview with Michael Jensen at his home which led to the discovery that the male in the family photo inside the house was the one seen at the Bank’s tapes cashing the check. The said male adult becomes the primary suspect and an interview with him is secured for the next day being careful not to reveal any evidence in the possession of investigators.

1.3 Identification of Suspect

A crucial element of investigations is the corroborative evidence of witnesses who actually witnessed the incident as it happened; they help in the identification of a suspect. One way this is achieved is through a photo lineup. It involves showing a witness a set of photographs to see whether or not they can identify a suspect and a positive identification can be used to secure an arrest or be used as evidence in court.

In Manson v Brathwaite’s case (Manson v Brathwaite) the court held that photo lineups should not be unduly suggestive such that a suspect is highlighted to elicit his identification. To avoid this, a witness is to be shown various photos of persons with similar bodily attributes to the suspect.

A successful photo lineup is one that is done when the witness memory is still fresh, when the degree of attention the witness paid to the suspect is substantial and when the witness gives a vivid description of the incident. It is up to the investigator to ensure the same (8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest).

In this instance the prospective witness was the teller who was able to recall the incident quite well noting the messy handwriting used. After seeing the lineup which included a mug shot recovered from the system, she was able to positively identify the suspect as Jacob Jensen stating “That’s him – I’m sure of it” and affixing her initials to the photograph. There was no unduly suggestion noted.

1.4 Arrest

An arrest involves the placing of a person in custody or restraint for the person to answer to a criminal charge. An arrest can occur vide an arrest warrant is issued by a court or a judicial officer after noting probable cause that a criminal offence has occurred and the person is probably guilty of the same. An arrest can occur, which is what mostly happens, without an arrest warrant and this can happen where a police officer catches a person committing or attempting to commit a crime or where the officer reasonably believes that a crime has been committed and the person being arrested is the likely guilty party.

An arresting officer has to abide by the Miranda warnings during arrest. These rules were derived from the case of Miranda v State of Arizona (Miranda v State of Arizona)where it was held that officers are to advice a suspect of his fifth and sixth amendment rights, that is, the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

In the instant case it was right to arrest Jacob Jensen as he was reasonably suspected to have committed a crime a fact informed by the evidence that had been gathered thus far. The problem with the arrest however, was the not informing the suspect of his Miranda rights even though Michael Jensen informed him of the same. That was not correct as an investigator performing an arrest must inform the suspect of these set of rights to ensure any information gathered can be admissible. Hence all the information given by Jacob while in the ride to the station is inadmissible.

1.5 Interviewing a Suspect and Recording of a Confession

Upon arrest, a suspect is to be interviewed or rather interrogated and this can potentially lead to the suspect giving a confession that can be used as evidence against him in court. The suspect should be reasonably comfortable while being interrogated. The proper interviewing procedures are that the suspect is to be read his Miranda rights and make a choice whether or not to waive the same. The rights should be read before any questioning is done for the suspect to understand these rights before making his or her choice.

In the instant case the suspect was reasonably comfortable and was read the Miranda rights even though it was after being explained about the evidence against him on record and the lie that his father had recorded a sworn statement against him. Jacob proceeds and waives his rights and gives a full confession on the crime committed giving all the details. He even drafts an apology letter to the complainant giving all the details of the same.

The Miranda rules have been varied to allow admissibility of confessions made where they were not adhered to. For instance, in Nix v Williams (Nix v Williams)the court held that a confession can be admissible in violation of Miranda rules where evidence from the confession would ultimately have been discovered after further investigations. This applies in Jacob’s case as his confession included evidence already gathered and the facts he added would have been discovered.

1.6 Conclusion

Investigators have to be keen while conducting investigations to ensure all the evidence recovered is admissible in court and can adequately assist the prosecution. Once the proper investigations are done followed by a proper arrest and interrogation session the suspect can be correctly charged arraigned and ultimately convicted based on the proper process. Hence investigators play a crucial role in the criminal procedure.

1.7

Works Cited

”8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest.“11 January 2018. The Free Library 2018. Article. 4 December 2018. .

Manson v Brathwaite. No. 432 U.S. 98. The Supreme Court. 1977.

Miranda v State of Arizona. No. 384 U.S. 436. The Supreme Court. 1966.

Nix v Williams. No. 467 U.S. 431. The Supreme Court. 1984.