Paper Sample on Legal Perspectives: Burdens of Proof, Criminal Procedure, and Expert Witnesses

Section A: Burdens of Proof and Violations of Criminal Procedure

In the legal framework of the United States, the burden of proof is dependent on the nature of the case. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant; in civil cases, the plaintiff must prove his case through evidence presented in court. Every case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Fact Pattern A: John and the Food Stamps

In the case of John and the food stamps – Fact pattern A – the prosecution had the burden of proof. They had to pin John with a guilty plea of welfare fraud. The prosecution had to prove that actually, John actually signed the documents, and frankly, he did not have full custody of his children. During the investigations, the officers violated a criminal procedure. They did not read the Miranda rights to the suspect, which says that one has the right to remain silent and that anything they say could be used against them in court (Rogers et al., 2016). In this case, Rule 1005 – Copies of Public Records to Prove Content can be used in the prosecution of the case (Cornell University Law School, 2011). The defendant would argue that the investigating officers did not read the Miranda rights to him. They were using statements in court made in violation of that provision. In the case proceedings, the prosecution can use the defendant’s signature in the legal document that claimed full custody of the children.

Fact Pattern B: Mary and the Shipping Department Practices

In the case of Mary and the Shipping Department Practices – Fact Pattern B – the burden of proof is also with the prosecution. They have to prove that Mary actually sent the borders illegally and that the charges made on the credit cards were not approved. The investigating officers in the case conducted themselves professionally, ensuring Mary heard her Miranda rights and allowing her to get an attorney. Marcy could be charged under Rule 1006 – Summaries to Prove Content (Cornell University Law School, 2011). The witness testimony by Mike and the unauthorized payments from customers’ cards would act as evidence against her. In her argument, she would claim that the perceived victims of the crime had not filed any complaint. On his part, Scott would argue he was not aware of the ongoing fraud and may get charges related to the tort of negligence.

Fact Pattern C: Dr. Pointer and the Sweaty Palms Surgeries

Dr. Pointer’s case – Fact Pattern C – was a case of insurance fraud. The burden of proof lay with the prosecution, where they had to ascertain that the doctor was defrauding insurance companies. The claims by Beth had to be proven, and insurance companies would also have to agree that the amounts charged for the ‘sweaty palms’ surgery were excessive. Prosecution evidence proving motive, intent, opportunity, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident would be required. The investigating officers made a few mistakes when arresting the doctor. First, they searched his office with a valid court warrant to do the search and seizure of Beth’s file. Further, they went to the doctor’s house and entered without permission, contrary to criminal procedures. On arrest, they did not read the Miranda rights to him as should always be done. In this case, Dr. Pointer would be charged under Rule 404(b) (2) – Crimes or Other Acts. The prosecution would try to prove that the defendant committed the crimes with full knowledge of the law and its consequences (Cornell University Law School, 2011).

Fact Pattern D: Bill’s Investment

In the vase of Bill’s Investment – Fact Pattern D – was an investment fraud that the prosecution would have to prove was orchestrated by Western Tool. The witness testimonies by Dan and Bill would go a long way in ensuring that the police got to the bottom of the matter. The investment fraud was also done together with mail fraud. Several pieces of law would be used in the prosecution of this case. They include; Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, Rule 1003 – Admissibility of Duplicates, Rule 901(6) - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence, and Rule 1003 – Admissibility of Duplicates (Cornell University Law School, 2011). The investigating officers conducted investigations with professionalism, and the information should lead to the arrest of the perpetrators of the fraud.

Section B: The Role of the Expert Witness

Fact Pattern A

In this case, the prosecution is trying to prove that indeed John Doe committed welfare fraud and should be punished. As an expert witness, the most critical part would be verifying the authenticity of the signature appended by John on the legal document claiming custody of his children. If the signature matched others appended on different documents by John, it would support the prosecution’s case by expert opinion in affirmation of the case.

In a different scenario of supporting the defense, I would craft a view to assure the courts that the children received support from me after the collection of the welfare monies and food stamps. Alternatively, as an expert witness, I would dismiss claims of an organized pattern of suspicious activity to defraud the state, opining that the defendant’s signature was a regrettable error. I might need to collect further evidence on whether the defendant had contact with the children during this time, as it would support the view that the children still received fatherly support. More proof is also required of the monies received by John during the said period.

As a fraud examiner expert witness, I have to be certified through the Federal Rules of Evidence as an expert in welfare, child support, and custody issues after divorce. Since it is a welfare fraud case, one must have expert knowledge in forensics. The main qualification for an expert witness is the possession of specialist expertise in the subject matter under the court’s scrutiny (Eddy, 2020). Experience of the issue at hand outside the courtroom is fundamental.

Fact Pattern B

This is a credit card fraud case, an issue of financial impropriety among sellers and online billers. As a fraud examiner, one would advise the prosecution to insist on a lack of authorization for each transaction by customers as the basis of the case. In this sense, the prosecution would obtain the unsigned purchase orders that have been billed and charged with the customers unaware. In support of the defense, the opinion provided would be that the terms and conditions of the transaction indicate that a customer is only required to authorize payment once; further transactions would require no authorizations. This would make unauthorized transactions legal and not fraudulent.

The support of defense would require further investigation into the terms of the agreement between sellers and buyers, and whether the purchase orders include such conditions. Further, one would have to bring on board some of the clients as witnesses to prove that they are comfortable with the arrangement with the company. The charges made on their cards are in line with their relationship with the business. Additional investigation helps in building a stronger argument.

The expert witness, in this case, must be reliably experienced in matters of financial fraudulence dealings. The individual should have practiced as a finance officer in corporations to clarify how the purchase procedures are undertaken, and whether charging credit cards without authorization is an illegal practice. Therefore, knowledge of financial dealings between businesses is paramount for this expert witness. A certified public accountant would fare well in this case (Keane, 2018).

Fact Pattern C

The case of Dr. Pointer is an insurance fraud case. As a fraud examiner, one would be interested in proving that, indeed, Dr. Pointer defrauded the insurance company by charging Beth (the patient) for a service she did not receive. The expert witness’s focus, in this case, is the advert on sweaty palms surgery and the file of Beth that contained information about charges to the insurance company. In support of the defense, the argument would be that the information was recorded in the wrong patient’s file. I would advise the defendant to argue that the surgery had been done on a different patient, and a mix-up of the names led to filing in the wrong file.

Further investigation would be on the other patients who had received such surgery and the amounts charged. It would also involve collecting information from other facilities and regulatory agencies on the legitimacy of the “sweaty palms” surgery. As a prosecution witness, finding out that such surgery does not exist or was charged far less than the amounts demanded by Dr. Pointer would ease the case.

The case requires some qualifications for an expert witness. First, one must understand how insurance reimbursements are conducted. One also needs an understanding of medical laws and regulations surrounding surgery and the authenticity of the different services offered by doctors. Determining his qualifications to provide such a service could also go a long way in deciding on the case. Therefore, apart from insurance knowledge, the expert should have a bit of expertise in the operations of the healthcare system. One should pass the CFE Exam, and being an insurance investigator would be an advantage.

Fact Pattern D

The case is that of an investment fraud orchestrated by Western Tool. As a fraud examiner expert witness, the advice to the prosecution would be to collate the documents supplied to Bill by Amy and evaluate them. The prosecution should also obtain a search warrant for Amy and authorization to track her through the phone numbers and emails she used to communicate with Bill, as she would be a key figure in the case. On the defense side, I would advise them to argue that they were honoring their part of the bargain by sending the checks to the ‘investors’ in the scheme. The investors were receiving checks; there had not been a prior agreement of the amount that one would receive at the expiry of the given period.

There is a lot that needs investigation in this case. More details would include the physical location and address of the Western Tool, the role and location of Amy, and the trail of transactions of the company. It is also important to find out whether there was any such business they were doing, like buying old trailers and reconditioning them for resale. If there was no such business in the books of Western Tool, it would qualify as an outright fraud scheme that needed prosecution.

An important qualification in the case of an expert witness would be the understanding of how pyramid schemes work. Bill’s invitation to find more investors has all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme. Further, one needs knowledge of how legitimate investment schemes are planned and orchestrated. If the Western Tool business structure does not meet the basics of a true investment scheme, the expert witness should raise a red flag. The jury can then form an informed opinion and make a just decision. Certified financial forensics would give an undoubtedly priceless opinion (Keane, 2015)

References

Cornell University Law School. (2011, December 1). Federal rules of evidence. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Eddy, N. (2020). Evaluating an Expert’s Qualifications: 10 Items to Consider. Expert Institute. https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/10-keys-to-evaluating-expert-qualifications/.

Keane, J. (2018). Certified Fraud Examiner Expert Witnesses | ForensisGroup Expert Consulting. Expert Witness | ForensisGroup Expert Consulting.