Reference no: EM132190130
150 words reply tooth's
In the Scott Mayo case, both eyewitness accounts are subjective and questionable. The statement from Joe "The Fireman" can be discredited by his relationship to Mr. Mayo. Friends utilized as eyewitnesses may be protecting their relationship by withholding evidence or information.
An intelligent prosecution attorney would not discredit any of the witnesses statements and would use the fact that Mayo was under the influence against him. Drinking and utilizing a firearm is almost always illegal as well as discharging a firearm within city limits.
The violation of city ordinance, the disregard for laws in regards to handling a firearm, and the known debt between Mayo and the deceased concludes guilt beyond reasonable doubt when articulated correctly.
The defense attorney can discredit Dawn Dietz statement with two very important facts. The first fact is that Ms. Dietz had consumed three glasses of wine clouding her judgement and potentially causing her to misremember the event.
The second fact is that she was not close enough to hear exactly what was being said if she was just exiting the bathroom and may hold bias against Mr. Mayo due to the previous altercations involving the television channel. These factors can completely discredit Ms. Dietz statements in regards to the events that transpired that evening.
The statements may all be admissible or inadmissible depending on the way that the information is presented by the defense and prosecution attorneys.
The admissibility of the police officers statement will most likely be considered the most reliable due to his training and the fact that he had not consumed alcohol. All other witnesses were under the influence during the time in which the events transpired leaving their statements questionable in nature.
References
Buckles, T. (2007). Crime Scene Investigation, Criminalistics, and The Law, 1st Edition.
Godfrey, R. D., & Clark, S. E. (2010). Repeated eyewitness identification procedures: Memory, decision making, and probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 241-258.