Legal question for you non-lawyers

[Barrister]

I'm mulling over a newly-assigned file at the moment, and for kicks I thought I'd post the questions I have to the general forum.  I really don't expect a useful answer, but you never know.

Several years ago a lady is out of town on vacation.  Her neighbors (who don't know her very well) at one point see a cube van pull up to the house at around 10 at night, and leave a half hour later.  They see at least a couple of people, but don't get any useful description.  Sure enough when the homeowner's family member checks on the house a day later it has been ransacked.  Anything of value has been taken, including cash and lots of electronics.  There are estimates as high as $100k in value of the items stolen.

Forensic ident arrives.  They can not develop any prints, but they do get a DNA profile off of an empty coke can and an empty juice box left in the kitchen.  The homeowners didn't have any coke in the house, but the juice box appears to have been taken from the fridge.

With no one to compare the DNA to though the case goes cold.

Until last year, when a hit is generated on the national DNA databank.  A fellow had just been convicted of break and enter, had a sample put on the system, and it matches.

So the question is - how strong is this case?  Homeowners will say they don't know the accused, has never been in their house.  But I have zero evidence other than the DNA.

[Neil]

Were I on the jury, I would vote to convict and hang from the neck until dead.

[CountDeMoney]

The homeowners know they were robbed.  The neighbors witnessed an act that an objective person could reasonably assume was the robbery.  Now you have DNA that places an individual at the scene. 

Besides, I don't think this recently convicted fellow has the juice, pardon the pun, to hire a Dream Team to destroy the DNA evidence.

Unless he's got an airtight alibi--like serving time--I think, if you're ballsy enough, you can get a conviction.  It's worth rolling the dice, man.

[crazy canuck]

Were I on the jury, I would vote to convict and hang from the neck until dead.

And that is without reading anything BB posted.

[Jacob]

I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.

Unless a matching DNA profile is approaching 100% certainty for identifying the suspect, he's just going to say "I have no idea how those things ended up there. I wasn't there" and that's that. I expect you need some other evidence.

[CountDeMoney]

I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.

I disagree.  Even in a 3rd world country like Canada, you can get a conviction off a circumstantial evidence.

[Eddie Teach]

Juicebox and Coke can are both movable items, so a considerably weaker case than if the DNA had been found on a fixture. I would certainly need more than this to vote for conviction. Especially as I'm pretty sure I wouldn't know about his recent conviction.

[Barrister]

I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.

Unless a matching DNA profile is approaching 100% certainty for identifying the suspect, he's just going to say "I have no idea how those things ended up there. I wasn't there" and that's that. I expect you need some other evidence.

The DNA profile is accurate to one in several billion people.  There is zero doubt that it is his DNA on those items.

Unless he in fact had a strong alibi he'd never, ever take the stand - that would allow me to introduce his rather extensive criminal record.  Which I otherwise wouldn't be able to mention.

The question is once I have introduced the evidence will the judge convict or not.

[crazy canuck]

I am a bit rusty on criminal law.  Can you introduce a prior record if the accused does not put his character in issue?

[CountDeMoney]

The question is once I have introduced the evidence will the judge convict or not.

Judges know the deal on DNA.
It's juries that are suspect about it.

[HVC]

It's juries that are suspect about it.

it's all OJ's fault.

[HVC]

Also, i'd convict.


Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up". Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?

[Barrister]

I am a bit rusty on criminal law.  Can you introduce a prior record if the accused does not put his character in issue?

If the accused takes the stand, I can introduce his prior record for the sole purpose of questioning his credibility.  The trier of fact is not supposed to consider the record for any other purpose.

Actually, if it was in front of the jury, a judge might not allow me to introduce his record now that I think about it because it would be too prejudicial.  I have my doubts that the accused would elect judge and jury though - it would mean a much longer wait for a trial, and he's bail denied.

A colleague of mine had the opposite opinion - he felt that evidence would force the accused to take the stand.

[Barrister]

Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up".

You watch too much tv.

Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?

You'd need a lot of very specific evidence before being allowed to introduce similar fact evidence.  It might be worth looking into, but it's extremely unlikely.

[HVC]

Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up".

You watch too much tv.

hey, if i was a theif and had no other defense they'd be my go to move . Well, first would be staying off the stand.

Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?

You'd need a lot of very specific evidence before being allowed to introduce similar fact evidence.  It might be worth looking into, but it's extremely unlikely.

If you do end up using it can i get a commision?