Evidence in criminal trials

[valentino]

What is the point in showing a dead body in criminal cases.For instance in many cases they show a decomposed body which has been in the ground for months after the crime was committed.We all know that scavengers and maggots will feed on dead corpses.But what has that got to do with anything.?it seems like their trying to show this is how bad the crime was.it seems they want to cause sentimental feelings in the jury.It says look how bad this murderer is.He let this person end up in this condition.If the murderer would have given this crime victim a decent burial would he have been less a murderer?Would he be a compassionate murderer and therefore he shouldn’t be seen as such a bad guy?

 

[Dawnia]

What is the point in showing a dead body in criminal cases.For instance in many cases they show a decomposed body which has been in the ground for months after the crime was committed.We all know that scavengers and maggots will feed on dead corpses.But what has that got to do with anything.?it seems like their trying to show this is how bad the crime was.it seems they want to cause sentimental feelings in the jury.It says look how bad this murderer is.He let this person end up in this condition.If the murderer would have given this crime victim a decent burial would he have been less a murderer?Would he be a compassionate murderer and therefore he shouldn’t be seen as such a bad guy?

Each side in a case tells a story. The condition of the person when they were found is a relevant facts in that story as well as proof that the body was indeed found. The prosecution can also use those pictures to show how they came to the conclusion that they did regarding the accused. Pictures help show the jury the complete picture and the severity of the crime. It also prevents the jury from using their imagination as opposed to what really happened.

Using pictures of a dead boy don’t draw up sentimental feelings, but the picture of what the person used to look like before the horrible rotten accused murder snuffed out their life certainly does.

 

[Spirithound]

Habeas corpus: you may have the body

 

[Skeptic92]

What is the point in showing a dead body in criminal cases.For instance in many cases they show a decomposed body which has been in the ground for months after the crime was committed.We all know that scavengers and maggots will feed on dead corpses.But what has that got to do with anything.?it seems like their trying to show this is how bad the crime was.it seems they want to cause sentimental feelings in the jury.It says look how bad this murderer is.He let this person end up in this condition.If the murderer would have given this crime victim a decent burial would he have been less a murderer?Would he be a compassionate murderer and therefore he shouldn’t be seen as such a bad guy?

A corpse is evidence, no body, no murder, without a body a murder conviction is unlikely (yes it does happen, but it is much harder to get a conviction), so a corpse with DNA evidence showing that it is the body of John/Jane Doe, with a ruling that they died unlawfully (via homicide) shows that a murder did take place. It’s all a formal matter of evidence rather then sentimental feelings.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Habeas corpus: you may have the body

What does Habeas corpus have to do with presenting evidence? Isn’t it for releasing prisoners?

 

[valentino]

Each side in a case tells a story. The condition of the person when they were found is a relevant facts in that story as well as proof that the body was indeed found. The prosecution can also use those pictures to show how they came to the conclusion that they did regarding the accused. Pictures help show the jury the complete picture and the severity of the crime. It also prevents the jury from using their imagination as opposed to what really happened.

Using pictures of a dead boy don’t draw up sentimental feelings, but the picture of what the person used to look like before the horrible rotten accused murder snuffed out their life certainly does.

If a prosecutor tells the jury that the body was found in a field and it was decomposed and partially eaten and the defense agrees what is the perpose of the prosecutor demanding they show the remains?this happens often.

 

[Dawnia]

If a prosecutor tells the jury that the body was found in a field and it was decomposed and partially eaten and the defense agrees what is the perpose of the prosecutor demanding they show the remains?this happens often.

It is more effective to show someone a picture than it is to tell them.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If the deceased was savagely, evilly, brutally murdered, the sight of the crimes committed against the body may emotionally affect the jury to such an extent that they would be more likely to throw the book at the accused and/or recommend the death penalty for the accused. Plain attempt at emotional manipulation of a jury.

Besides the reasons describes in the previous posts, that is ALSO one of the reasons for showing the deceased.

Hate to have this sound the wrong way, but it works particualrly well when the deceased is a small child. Particularly one that has been raped and mutilated before being killed. You show the pictures of that poor dead child, the accused can kiss his/her rear end goodbye. Particularly if the evidence is very strong against he/her in the first place.
Not necessarily saying this is intrinsically bad----just telling it like it is. :blush:

 

[valentino]

It is more effective to show someone a picture than it is to tell them.

thanks for your answer.

 

[vz71]

If a prosecutor tells the jury that the body was found in a field and it was decomposed and partially eaten and the defense agrees what is the perpose of the prosecutor demanding they show the remains?this happens often.

It is a fact that juries do not always work on logic.

It is part of the process that the lawyer will use every legel means to sway the jury in their favor.

If that means appealing to emotions, then they will do that.

 

[michelleds]

In the US, and I don’t know where the OP is from, there are pretty specific rules about what is and what is not allowable in regards to showing pictures. (these are questions of admissibility).

for instance, re photos: all relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited. When it comes to photos–either death or life photos–the prohibitions extend to whether the photos were overly repetitious, gruesome, or inflammatory.

Admission of photographs that are unduly repetitious and cumulative, or that are introduced solely for a prejudicial purpose, constitutes an abuse of discretion, albeit such a finding is rare in a murder case.

“Even where the defendant concedes the cause of death, the prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements of the crime charged; and photographs to prove the elements of the crime, including the fact and manner of death and the violent nature of the crime, are relevant and admissible. [Citations omitted.] Photographs depicting the extent, nature, and number of wounds inflicted are generally relevant in a first-degree murder case.”

both quotes from State v. Edwards, a KS supreme court case from 2010

 

[Spirithound]

What does Habeas corpus have to do with presenting evidence? Isn’t it for releasing prisoners?

Isn’t that when they present evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed at all? If so, the murdered person’s body would count as evidence of a murder.

 

[chevalier]

The prosecutors’ showing off of gory pictures is begging for abuse by jury.

It should not be allowed before the man is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In my view, crying about how bad the crime was has no place in that part of the proceedings which is about finding out who did it and then determining if that suspect really did it.

The condition of the body or any aspect of the awfulness of the crime has NO bearing whatsoever on whether the guilt is proven or not.

Prosecution should not be allowed to rely on severity of crime arguments to gloss over evidential shortcomings. In my view, that’s serious prosecutorial misconduct. One should be disbarred for doing that intentionally.

The part of the tale about how bad the crime was has its place but it should only belong in deciding how much the perp should get, not whether he did it or not.

And I say this as a criminal trial lawyer by education. I wrote my Master’s thesis on the benefit of doubt and I’m in the final year of SJD/PhD on reasonable doubt. I know what I’m talking about.

 

[valentino]

thanks for all your responses.

 

[Dawnia]

The prosecutors’ showing off of gory pictures is begging for abuse by jury.

It should not be allowed before the man is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In my view, crying about how bad the crime was has no place in that part of the proceedings which is about finding out who did it and then determining if that suspect really did it.

The condition of the body or any aspect of the awfulness of the crime has NO bearing whatsoever on whether the guilt is proven or not.

Prosecution should not be allowed to rely on severity of crime arguments to gloss over evidential shortcomings. In my view, that’s serious prosecutorial misconduct. One should be disbarred for doing that intentionally.

The part of the tale about how bad the crime was has its place but it should only belong in deciding how much the perp should get, not whether he did it or not.

And I say this as a criminal trial lawyer by education. I wrote my Master’s thesis on the benefit of doubt and I’m in the final year of SJD/PhD on reasonable doubt. I know what I’m talking about.

I believe the severity of the crime is all part of the whole picture. Whether you show the pictures or not, the details of the crime will paint a picture for the jury regardless. And shouldn’t it be up to the defense attorney to make sure prejudicial info doesn’t get in rather than just making a blanket ban?

 

[michelleds]

And I say this as a criminal trial lawyer by education. I wrote my Master’s thesis on the benefit of doubt and I’m in the final year of SJD/PhD on reasonable doubt. I know what I’m talking about.

You can’t, by definition, BE a trial lawyer “by education”. One is a trial lawyer because they’ve been in the well, fighting the good fight. Your post is full of uninformed theories. Did you even read the quotes from ACTUAL cases that I posted above?