DB Response: | Criminal

Research Requirement:

DiscussionAssignmentInstructions.docx CJUS 410 Discussion Assignment Instructions You will complete 4 Discussions in this course. You will post one thread of at least 300 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday day of the assigned Module: Week. You must then post 2 replies of at least 150 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread, you must support your assertions with at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format and 1 biblical citation. Each reply must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include scholarly journals (not the textbook but should include the Bible, etc.). ErinHudginsWK3.docx Erin Hudgins In Davis v. Washington (2006), the Supreme Court made it clear that there’s an important difference between “testimonial” and “non-testimonial” statements under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause gives a defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” meaning that testimonial evidence can’t be used unless the witness can be cross-examined. The Court explained that statements made to help deal with an ongoing emergency are non-testimonial, while those made after the danger has passed are testimonial and usually can’t be used if the witness isn’t available (Davis v. Washington, 2006).   In this case, the woman was texting her police officer friend and sending photos while her ex-husband was actively attacking her. Since the assault was happening in real time, her messages weren’t meant to provide evidence for trial, she was trying to get help and protect herself. Based on the Davis v. Washington decision, those texts and the photo would be considered non-testimonial because they were made during an emergency and were focused on getting immediate assistance, not reporting past events. So, they should definitely be admissible in court.   I also think the police officer friend should count as a witness. He was actively communicating with the victim while the assault was taking place, not interviewing her after everything was over. He was basically witnessing parts of the event as it unfolded through text messages and pictures. His testimony would be like that of a 911 operator receiving a live emergency call, which the Supreme Court in Davis v. Washington said was non-testimonial. Since he was responding in real time, what he saw and read should be valid evidence.   Deuteronomy 19:15 (NKJV) says, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” This verse shows how God values fairness and truth when deciding guilt. In this situation, the officer’s firsthand communication with the victim, along with the text messages and photo, provides more than enough support to meet the threshold. Together, they establish clear evidence that the assault really happened even without the victim present at court. KayleenMartinezwk3.docx Kayleen Martinez In the scenario provided, the woman sends text messages and a photograph to a law enforcement friend during an ongoing assault by her ex-husband. The key question is whether these communications are “testimonial” statements under the standard set by  Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), and whether they should be admitted as evidence at trial. In  Davis v. Washington, the Supreme Court distinguished between testimonial statements, which are primarily intended to preserve evidence for prosecution, and non-testimonial statements, which are made in the course of an ongoing emergency. Testimonial statements typically include formal statements to law enforcement or affidavits, while non-testimonial statements are made under circumstances that are primarily concerned with obtaining help or resolving an immediate threat. Applying this rationale to the scenario, the woman’s text messages and photograph were sent in the midst of an ongoing assault. The messages were primarily intended to summon immediate assistance and protect herself from harm, rather than to create a formal record for future prosecution. As such, these communications closely resemble the emergency 911 call in  Davis, which the Court held to be non-testimonial. Therefore, the text messages and photograph should be admitted as evidence at trial, as they were part of an ongoing emergency and were not made for the primary purpose of establishing facts for trial. The fact that she could not appear at trial does not change the nature of the statements; they were made in real time for safety rather than for evidentiary purposes. Considering Deuteronomy 19:15, which emphasizes that “one witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses,” one might consider whether the woman’s text messages alone are sufficient. While the scripture encourages multiple witnesses to establish the truth of an accusation, it does not necessarily negate the admissibility of her communications as evidence. Her messages and photograph can be supplemented by additional evidence, such as the ex-husband fleeing the scene, surveillance footage, or other witnesses who may have observed the incident. Therefore, in light of this scripture, my conclusion would not change regarding admissibility, but it would emphasize the importance of corroborating the evidence to strengthen the case and align with the principle of requiring multiple sources to establish guilt. In conclusion, the text messages and photograph should be admitted as evidence because they are non-testimonial under  Davis v. Washington. While Deuteronomy 19:15 encourages multiple witnesses for conviction, this principle can be applied by seeking corroborating evidence alongside the woman’s communications to ensure a fair and just trial.