Criminal Law: Conflict of Evidence Law and Constitutional Rights

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
Introduction
In criminal investigations the primary focus is on establishing the guilt of the accused.
Thus gathering evidence that ratify such accusations is of utmost importance. The authorities
tasked with gathering evidence on the crime would ideally need various distinct pieces of
evidence to establish mens rea and actus reas. However in such investigations the rights of the
defendant guaranteed under the constitution cannot be forfeited or infringed in any way. The
constitution is the Grundnorm and all other laws find legislative force through the provisions of
the Constitution and thus its provisions cannot be eclipsed by the provisions of any other law.
The question is what are the repercussions when a constitutional right conflicts with evidentiary
rule, which otherwise allows the court to either allow or reject any piece of evidence at the trial.
The debate is over the supremacy of the constitutional right over the evidentiary rule and
whether it should be allowed to be a “trump”. From the mere understanding that the Constitution
of the United States is the Supreme Law of the land, the constitutional rights shall apply (Garrett,
2015). This has seen a deviance from the norm that constitutional rights shall apply to the laws
which might change the result at the civil or criminal trial because the trial courts and the
Supreme Court have not interpreted the Constitution to not apply rules of evidence.
Conflict of Evidence law and Constitutional Rights
It has been held in the case of Michelson v. United States 335 U.S. 469, 486 (1948)
identified conflicts in evidence gathering which may arise in light of Constitutional rights. This
case also reiterated the evidentiary value of a defendant’s good character as evidence. The
challenges in gathering forensic evidence while adhering to the Constitutional rights of the

2CRIMINAL LAW
defendant can be identified by first identifying the steps in gathering such evidence. These are
listed below (AR, 2014):
 Arrival at scene and preliminary investigation.
 Preliminary evaluation and documentation in the scene.
 Processing of the Crime scene.
 Completing the recording of the scene of the crime.
 Crime scene equipment.
In case of the crime of murder observance of protocol in each of these steps is especially
essential as a procedural defect could lead to the acquittal of a person accused of such a heinous
crime (Coulthard, Johnson & Wright, 2016). The constitutional conflict that may arise in each of
these situations is set out in seriatim below:
1. Arriving at the crime scene
The first most important step of preserving a crime scene is to ensure that there is
minimum contamination and the physical evidence should not be disturbed. The initial
responding officer after entering the crime scene has to first assess the scene and then
after proper evaluation shall treat the incident as a crime scene. It is the duty of the initial
responding officer to note or log any dispatch related to the crime of murder, like the
telephonic calls that have been made, the parties who were involve (Robertson, Roux &
Wiggins, 2017). In cases of murder, it is important to look for weapons or evidence and
tread cautiously to make sure that the evidences are not damaged. The officer has to keep
a keen eye on any dangerous weapon or person in the crime scene which might be of
immediate threat to the officers accompanying the initial responding officer. In cases of