Laying the foundation simply means “presenting evidence that sets the groundwork for other evidence, and authenticating and identifying the evidence” (Buckles, 2002, p. 76). One way of authenticating and identifying physical evidence is testimony of the witnesses having personal knowledge of the evidence presented and can testify as to the veracity of such evidence (Buckles 2002). Another way is characteristic of the item if it is distinctive may be sufficient in authenticating evidence. Third way of authenticating evidence is voice identification which is done through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording (Buckles 2002).
Fourth way is through public records or reports which may be authenticated by the record custodian. The last way is through telephone conversation which should be proven by the identity of the caller and the place of business and that the conversation transacted through phone is related to the business (Buckles 2002). B. Generally, evidences obtained through the use of electronic or technological advances are not accepted in court because of abuses and question as to its authenticity and veracity.
However, there are instance that these evidences can be legally accepted. First, photographic evidence can be presented to support the court in resolving issues or facts in a crime scene. Second, if the determination of the case is based on facts. Third, if it is essential to present business records that has been through computerized system. Fourth, is when the evidence is used as demonstrative evidence which is purposely to validate or exhibit a motion. Fifth, these evidences are acceptable if recorded conversations are necessary in establishing the truth.
Last, photographs of x-ray can be acceptable if it is necessary to establish the facts concerning the part of the body x-rayed. 2. A. Under the Miranda doctrine, a person under custody and interrogation should be provided with the essential warnings. These includes the rights of the detainee to be informed of his right to remain in silent, that statements made by him can be used against him, to require the presence of an attorney during interrogation, and that if cannot afford one, an attorney should be provided before his interrogation (Buckles 2002).
Under the case of Miranda v. Arizona, custody refers to the instance where a person is “deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way” (384 U. S. 436). Interrogation, on the other hands, refers to the instance where the law enforcement officers question the person taken in their custody (384 U. S. 436). B. The Miranda doctrine, however, is not absolute because there are instances where police officers may interrogate the detainee and any answer purported can be used as evidence against the latter.
One instance is when the detainee has waived his right to counsel and has communicated his willingness to answer questions of the police officers. In this instance, it is necessary that the detainee has a clear willingness to do such and that he intelligently knows about the waiver of his right to counsel. Another instance excluded from the Miranda doctrine is when the person has made a stand even without giving him the necessary warnings. The last exception could be a second confession made by the defendant even if it contains confession in an earlier interrogation where Miranda right has been violated.