Evidence Chart for Project Paper

December 16, 2022

Evidence Chart for Project Paper

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Evidence Chart for Project Paper

Evidence, Chart, Project, Paper

While there are two options to choose from, you will complete the option that corresponds to that same option you chose to complete for the final Project.

Option #1: Evidence Chart for Project Option #1

For this Project Milestone, you will create the Evidence Chart for your Project Option #1. You will apply what you have learned about laws of evidence to a Fact Pattern for a case titled State v. Lauren, which will serve as a fictional case study for your Project.

Review option #1 of the Project.
Download the attached evidence chart template that can be used to create the evidence chart for this assignment. (**Note: You may need to add rows and columns to the chart.)
In the evidence chart, list and describe all possible evidentiary items and issues of evidentiary law contained in the attached Project Fact Pattern State v. Lauren.
With regard to each item, identify all the evidentiary rule(s) an attorney could cite to the court to have the item admitted into evidence or suppressed during trial; provide an explanation as to your reliance on the particular rule(s). For purposes of this project, assume the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are the applicable rules as well as any constitutional rules that may apply. You must clearly identify the applicable FRE or other law that applies for each piece of evidence. In some instances, more than one rule may apply.

Option #2: Evidence Chart for Project Option #2

For this assignment, you will create the evidence chart for two cases for your Project, Option #2. The two cases that you choose, below, will be the basis for your Project Option #2, due next week. For this assignment you need to download two documents: the evidence chart template and the Project Fact Pattern. These are linked below.

Download the attached evidence chart template
Choose two of the following cases to chart:

Amy Fisher (1992)
OJ Simpson (1995)
Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing) (1997)
Martha Stewart (2003)
Zacarias Moussaoui (2006)
Mary Winkler (2006)
George Zimmerman (2013)

Thoroughly research your two chosen cases and chart the evidence in the evidence chart. FindLaw (Links to an external site.)is one of the many online resources to research information on law cases.
In the evidence chart, list and describe all possible evidentiary items and issues of evidentiary law contained in the attached Project Fact Pattern. (**Note: You may need to add rows and columns to the chart.)
With regard to each evidentiary item listed above, identify all the evidentiary rule(s) an attorney could cite to the court to have the item admitted into evidence or suppressed during trial.

Provide an explanation as to your reliance on the particular rule(s).
For purposes of this project, assume the Federal Rules of Evidence (Links to an external site.)(FRE) are the applicable rules as well as any constitutional rules that may apply. You must clearly identify the applicable FRE or other law that applies for each piece of evidence. In some instances, more than one rule may apply.

Project Fact Pattern

State v. Lauren

Officer Dan, a police officer on the force for five years, pulled over Ben, who had been driving 70 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone. Ben had been driving a rental car and, when stopped, he gave valid legal consent to a search of the car. Upon the search, Officer Dan discovered a large quantity of heroin in the console between the two front seats.

He immediately arrested Ben. Officer Dan promptly read Ben his Miranda rights, which Ben waived. Ben stated he was just driving the car for his friend Lauren and he was driving to meet her, where she was going to pick up the heroin. Ben said it was Lauren’s drugs, not his.

He offered to cooperate with Officer Dan because he was hoping he would not be charged with a crime. Officer Dan had Ben meet Lauren as the two had planned. Once she got in the car, however, Officer Dan headed toward her with intent to arrest her.

Lauren noticed Officer Dan, and she jumped out of the car, running as fast as she could. She ran for two blocks, even knocking over a pedestrian, Pete. She climbed a fence and escaped.

Officer Dan found Lauren at her residence. He had a valid warrant for her arrest. Lauren was presented in a line-up and Pete the pedestrian picked Lauren out of the line-up.

Both Ben and Lauren were charged with possession and distribution of heroin.

Lauren’s trial started before Ben’s trial. At her trial, several things happened:

Officer Dan was called by the prosecution. Officer Dan testified to the statements Ben said at the time of his arrest.
The prosecutor called Marilyn, an experienced detective with 20 years working in the Narcotics Bureau. She testified that it was standard practice for high-level drug dealers to use other people to transport the drugs.
The prosecutor called Josh, Lauren’s estranged husband. The prosecutor demanded to know whether Lauren used drugs or sold drugs.
The prosecutor sought to introduce bank records showing high levels of cash deposits going into Lauren’s bank account as evidence of drug-sale money.
The prosecutor called the pedestrian, Pete, to testify about the incident when he’d been knocked to the ground during the chase with Officer Dan. Pete said as Lauren was approaching, he heard her say “I can’t get busted for this! This was foolproof for so long!” Pete also testified that in his opinion it appeared she was running away from the police.

Lauren testified in her own defense. In her testimony:

She stated that she didn’t know about the heroin in the car and that she was not a drug dealer. She stated her purpose for meeting with Ben that day was because he was an old friend in town and she wanted to visit with him.
She also testified that when she got in the car with Ben, she noticed a receipt for the rental car. It had indicated that it was rented by Ben one month prior to the arrests. It was offered into evidence, which the court admitted.
The defense also sought to introduce fingerprint evidence proving Lauren’s fingerprints were not on the bag of heroin.
The defense further sought to call the youth leader at the local YMCA to testify that Lauren regularly volunteered for activities with underprivileged kids and that she was a valued role model for the children there.
While cross-examined, the prosecutor questioned Lauren whether she lied on her tax returns. The prosecutor actually had no proof that she did lie but figured most drug dealers don’t report their income. Lauren stated she never lied on her taxes.

[Order Now]

Evidence Chart for Project Paper

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.