Introduction
This paper will study the criminal justice process that should be followed when deciding a case of murder of two persons namely Mrs. Lucy Lane and Mr. Rodney Hill, whose bodies were discovered on the roadside after a bloody murder by unknown assailants. The paper will look at the process starting from investigation and search by the police, arrest, arraignment of the suspect in court to take their plea, the subsequent trial by the court, judgment and eventually sentencing. The paper will follow an American Justice System Approach in the whole process.
According to the information provided, Mr. John Wolf of 115 Street called the Police to investigate a body which he had found lying on the driveway of 114 Front Street. The body belonged to one Mrs. Lucy Lane and it was lying on the roadside of the driveway. The body appeared to have a number of stabs on its front and also the rear side. On the same roadside, police also found another body of one Mr. Rodney Hill. Similarly, the body had a number of stabs on the abdomen and chest. Mr. Wolf informed the police that he had responded to loud shouts and yelling which were coming form that side of the road and when he arrived, he saw the former occupant of the house, one M. James Lane leaving in his white Ford Bronco. What necessitated him to call the police, he said, was the sight of what looked like a dead body lying on the ground.
The investigations that were carried out by the police thereafter revealed that Mrs. Lane had in fact lived at 114 Street and that she had been in a relationship with the other deceased person, Mr. Hill, a relationship that lasted several months. Further investigations by the police revealed that the first deceased person, Mrs. Lane had divorced the suspected assailant, Mr. James Lane who happened to be a bartender a few months before the murder and that she had even attained a restraining order in respect of the same owing to the fact that the said Mr. James Lane had allegedly assaulted her both physically and emotionally which also included threats of death on her.
The criminal justice process to be followed
There is sufficient evidence to believe that the said James Lane had a hand on the death of the two deceased persons. The fact that an eye witness, one Mr. Wolf saw him leaving the scene of death immediately after the occurrence of such death is enough evidence to cause the police to conduct a search for the said Mr. Lane. There is also other evidence of threats, physical and emotional abuse which even led the court to issue a restraining order for the said Mrs. Lane who had approached the court for such an order. The police will therefore conduct a search for the said Mr. Lane to arraign him before the court. During this search, the police must follow the principles enunciated in Miranda v Arizona which includes the right to remain silent, the right to an advocate, the right to be exposed to the due process of the law and the right not to be forced to alter self-incriminating words. When the suspect, in this case James lane is finally arrested, he should be arraigned in court as soon as possible provided that it is not on a weekend, which is not a court business day.
Upon arraignment in court, James Lane, the suspect, will again be reminded of his Miranda rights again. He has to be reminded that he has the right to remain silent and a right to a defense counsel who will prosecute the case on his behalf. During all times that he will be in custody, he will reserve the right to communicate which his counsel whenever it is deemed right and reasonable to do so. If he is not able to obtain a defense counsel, he also reserves the right to be given a state counsel who will prosecute the case on his behalf. Upon arraignment in court, James will be allowed to take his plea before a magistrate. In taking such a plea, he may choose to remain silent again, take a plea of guilty, a plea of not guilty, raise a concern that the court does not have the jurisdiction to try him, or plead that he has been previously tried and either convicted or discharged of the same offence on the same facts, the plea of Autre fois acquit or altrefois convict. If it happens that he takes a plea of guilt, the court must ascertain that such a plea has been taken voluntarily and without any undue pressure of influence of any nature. If he takes the plea of not guilty, the case will proceed to full hearing.
The hearing of this case will involve the prosecution adducing evidence in form of witnesses and documents which fully support its case. The prosecution will have its witnesses labeled as PW1, PW2 which stands for prosecution witness 1, prosecution witness 2.in that order. The prosecution may decide to call the first complainant although in most criminal cases, the state is usually the complainant and in this case it is represented by the prosecution. The prosecution will definitely produce Mr. Wolf as one of the witnesses because he is the first person to witness the murder and also see Mr. Lane leaving the scene of the crime. Other witnesses likely to be called include the witnesses who heard or have reason to believe that Mr. Lane in fact issued threats to the deceased who happened to be his former wife before the divorce. Such witnesses will most likely testify to the effect that the said suspect was seen physically and emotionally assaulting the deceased on a material day.
After every witness testifies, the defense will have an opportunity to interrogate the veracity of such a testimony by cross-examining the witnesses. This is done by the defense counsel or the accused person to discredit the credibility of the testimony or the witness and is done on every witness. However, it is not mandatory that witnesses are cross-examined. After cross-examination, the prosecution can then re-examine the witness to clarify on some of the issues that may have arisen during cross-examination.
The prosecution will also produce documentary evidence for example the court order that was issued by the court restraining the accused person from continuing to infringe on the rights of the deceased by physically assaulting her. Other witnesses who are likely to be called t adduce their evidence in court include the Investigating officers who investigated the case and the police who actually arrested the accused person.
When the prosecution closes its case, the court will give a ruling as to whether or not the prosecution had adduced evidence which was capable of supporting a prima facie case that could proceed to the defense hearing stage. If the prosecution has not presented a prima facie case, the accused person will not be called upon to present his defense and will be released forthwith. If the prosecution has a prima facie case, the accused person will be called upon to call his defense. As outlined earlier, he can do so individually or through a defense lawyer. This being a capital offence, it is highly advisable that the accused person be represented by a defense attorney. The accused person will therefore be given an opportunity to give a sworn statement
