NCJ Number
77656
Date Published
1967
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Part of a series of training demonstrations by practicing trial lawyers and law enforcement officers in a criminal prosecution, this film illustrates the nature of proof in a robbery/murder case.
Abstract
The film begins with the deferred cross-examination of the stock clerk, who was present during the robbery of the Big Ten Party Store and Beverage House in Ann Arbor, Mich. The testimony of one of the two detectives from the Ann Arbor Police Department is presented, and includes photographs of the crime scene admitted as evidence, a description of the search for fingerprints, and a description of the appearance of the dead proprietor of the Big Ten Party Store. In the absence of the jury, the detective then testifies about his notifying the defendant of his rights under Miranda and of the defendant's response to this notification. The defense attorney, however, contends that an improper foundation for the defendant's confession was established, based on the defendant's lack of sleep and the detective's failure to provide the defendant such certain information as the defendant's right to have an attorney at the police lineup. Following the ruling that the defendant's statement be admitted as evidence, the jury returns and the defense attorney cross-examines the detective, focusing on the times of police interrogation, the detective's description of the proprietor, and the fact that the detective did not inform the defendant of his right to an attorney at the police lineup. The cross-examination of the eyewitness to the defendant's presence at the scene of the robbery focuses on the closeness of the relationship between the eyewitness and his uncle, the proprietor; the fact that the eyewitness did not really look at the defendant; and the witnesses' initial inability to identify the defendant in the police lineup. For related films in this series, see NCJ 77644-55 and NCJ 77657-59.