Savage at Crime Scene

The first thing I noticed is obviously the way he drove into the crime scene.  He barrelled right into the driveway, and nearly hit the two other detectives that were already there.  He could have also ran over some substancial evidence that may have been on the ground, hence the reason there were cones there.

He seemed to have a very laid back attitude about the whole investigation, dismissing the sargent from the scene and saying he was going to re-trace the whole incident. He did not do fingerprinting properly and was waving the finger printing materials in his assistant's face, which is unsanitary.
Upon entering the bathroom, he proceeds to wipe off blood smears that appear on the mirror instead of documenting them as evidence and having them tested.  When a bag of heroin was discovered in the kitchen, instead of taking it in for testing, he dips his finger in it to taste it, thus destroying evidence.    When it came time to treating the media, he was very impolite and did not handle the conference in a professional manner at all.

While this is an obvious exaderation of a real investigation, I do feel like this could actually happen because some police officers are careless, ignorant, or they just honestly don't know.  Falsyfing evidence is very popular, and commonly done accidentally.  However some police officers will on purposly falsify evidence to cover for another officer or someone they know.  What should be done to prevent these instances is more education about the importance of evidence and honestly collecting it.  Officers should be made accountable for their actions if they do something that falsifies the evidence or if they fail to document it.

Court Diagram

First, on the lowest of the diagram is Circuit court, which in new hampshire has 3 divisions- family, which takes care of adoption, domestic violence, divorce and custody battles, juvenile cases, and child services.  Next comes the Probate division which deals with last wills/testaments, adoptions, estates, guardianship of certain people after a death, and equity.  Finally, to finish out the Circuit division is the circuit court district division which deals with landlord/tenants, civil cases involving property that spans up to $25,000, small claims cases up to $5,000, misdemeanors, traffic violations and domestic violence petitions, depending on the county.

Next step up from Circuit is Superior court.  Superior court handles the jury trials in both criminal and civil cases, cases that involved damage to a person or property that values higher than $1,500, serious crimes, and also handles certain appeals from the district circuit court.

Lastly, we arrive at the Supreme  court, they decide appeals from all the court levels and also offer opinions to the executive and legislative branches of the government.

Source: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/selfhelp/find_your_court.htm

Polygraphs

Should lie detector tests be admissible in court?  How can polygraphs assist police in finding a suspect? When are they misused?

I feel that lie detector tests should be admissible in court because the suspect being polygraphed is made aware and given the conscious choice to submit to a polygraph or not, therefore waiving the fact of permission.  Therefore, the results of the polygraph are able to be used in a court setting as documented evidence.  Polygraphs can help police because, simply put, police re not psychics or mindreaders (except in movies like RIPD) and cannot reach into the suspect's mind and body to determine and pull out a detected lie.  The polygraph calmly acts as the psychic in this case and gently can tell if the suspect is lying, without torturing the suspect physically.  They can be misused however, because some police officers use it as a crutch instead of focusing on the importance of the evidence it can bring up.  Some police officers automatically make all suspects submit to a polygraph, even when there is no pre-evidence that the suspect is possibly lying.

Cognitive Interview

Upon my review of both the article and the video clip, I feel that for the most part the clip was pretty even with the article, with the exception of the beginning where the interviewer was a bit harsh, but maybe the person being interviewed needed that little pep talk.  But the interviewer made sure the person being interviewed had their eyes closed, which was mentioned in the article.  The interviewer is letting the person explain sights, sounds and smells that he experienced and urging the person to dwell on those things, in an attempt to bring out more information.  However, it seems more of a hypnosis than an interview, in the manner that the interviewer is forcing the person to almost relive the experience.  I did not see any piece of "step 4" from the article, which would be to change perspectives or make the person feel like he's in another person's shoes.

Miranda Rights

• Can you re-approach someone after they have asked for an attorney during questioning?

Yes, because even with an attorney present, they suspect can still be questioned.

• Can you continue to ask questions of a suspect if they say they don’t want to talk?

Yes.  These questions can then go in your statement as questions that were imposed, but left unanswered, that way there is no question of your judgement.

• What would be an exception to when Miranda would not have to be read?

Any case that involves an impending death, or a missing person that could be left for dead.  Also DWI's.

• Does a police officer need to read Miranda to a suspect immediately?  What is the benefit of waiting or doing it immediately.

While the officer does not need to read the rights immediately, the benefit of doing it immediately is that the suspect knows right away what has happened and what is to be expected.  It can also be beneficial to wait because then the police officer can determine what has happened and protect himself or herself from the liability of the defense attorney.

• If a suspect  says “I don’t want to talk to you, but I will.”  Is that a waiver of Miranda?  Would a confession be admissible in court?

I believe that this would be a waiver of Miranda rights because the suspect is clearly saying, I understand that I don't have to talk to you, nor do I want to, but I will anyways.  A confession under this case could hold up in court because even if they didn't want to say it, they said it.  The spoken word is still there and evident.

• What Constitutional Amendments guarantee a suspect his rights? 

The first amendment, freedom of speech, and the fifth amendment, which deals with each person's personal rights.

• Do you think that Miranda should still be read since most people are aware of the rights provided in Miranda

Yes, i believe that although most people are aware of their rights, they still should be used and verbally stated at an arrest or interrogation/interview, for multiple reasons.  One would be to make sure the police officer is covered, as a defense attorney can easily use the fact that the rights were not read to their client, and another reason would be the case of immigrants- they may not know their rights or fully understand them.  Also, while we all have heard of our rights, at the time being, we may forget a part of them and need a refresher.

Writing an Incident Report

I was dispatched to the scene at approximately 8:30 in the evening.  When I arrived, other authorities had already cornered off the scene and led me through what they've discovered.  A White Mercedes with California license plates was parked in the garage of apartment 8763.
I then entered the apartment and was directed to the living room, where the body of a female victim, Barbara Richardson, lying between the couch and the coffee table, splattered in blood, especially by the face and upper left arm.  She has one arm over her head, and she resting on the arm. There is a heavy presence of blood coming out of one of the victim's ears.  There is a noticeable amount of blood on the couch, possibly indicating that Ms. Richardson was laying on the couch before the incident. The victim is wearing what appears to be a white tennis outfit, the backside of which was covered in blood.
There is a plant in the doorway next to the victim's hand.  On the coffee table, there appears to be drug paraphernalia, including cigarettes and a pipe.  There are also small holes on the shades and walls of the apartment, as well as blood stains.
Victim was then taken to coroner's office for an autopsy.

Recording Field Notes- Wonderland Murder

• Victim discovered in the evening hours.  
• An antique white Mercedes Benz with California lisence plates parked in garage of building 8763 of complex.
• Small holes found in the walls and shades of apartment's living room. Blood splatter also discovered.
• Drug paraphernalia found on coffee table, including a pack of cigarettes and a pipe.
• Victim, a female named Barbara Richardson, found on living room floor, between couch and coffee table, splattered in blood, the majority of which is near her face and upper arm.
• Victim is laying with one arm up over her head, with her head resting on the arm.
•  Victim appears to have possibly been laying on couch before murdered. 
• Plant is next to victim's hand near doorway.
• Blood on victim appears to be heavy in visible ear.
• Victim is wearing what appears to be a white outfit, possibly a tennis outfit.  Back of outfit is covered in blood.