It is a known fact that severance should always be based on a cause of action that in most situations may give a plaintiff the opportunity to sue. Because in this case there is involvement of multiple defendants the court is advised to sever one or more defendants from the trial and try their cases separately. This means that Bert should be tried separately from the other individuals; this is based on his argument that he did not commit any of the rapes and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. In addition, his motion is not severe as can be supported by his proof that at the time of the rape instances he was not present rather he was with Mook who cannot now be traced and the court may have to wait for two months to continue with the case against Bert. It is also opined that the attorney for Bert may ask the court to sever Bert from the case in what is called a joinder. Legal experts have explained that for policy reasons courts prefer using joinder to hold separate trials because it saves time and money (Choo, 2012).
Prosecutors are expected to base their initial decision on the evidence presented by the police as the enforcing officers will complete an arrest report as to why the arrests were made, which are then forwarded to the prosecution (Choo, 2012). It is asserted that arrest reports will provide detailed information to the prosecutor to use in filling, ascertaining how much bail is required and the willingness of the prosecutor to plea bargain (Choo, 2012).This case presents a myriad of challenges on how pieces of evidence can be incorporated in the case; this is because Bland provides additional evidence to the police implicating Jones. This evidence is vital as it helps the police to discover some more separate assault cases. Later, Bland contacts the prosecution office to provide additional evidence exonerating Walsh from the case. The statements provided by Bland should be incorporated in the case, that is, the prosecutor should present new evidence to prosecute the accused individuals. This is because it is a known fact that the prosecutor must always prove the offense and this should be done to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt (Giannelli, 2009). For the sake of ‘water tight case’ against Jones and the exoneration of Walsh prosecution office should file additional evidence on the case.
Owing to the assertions by Bert that he was not present at the scene of rape and that he was with Mook who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for two months. The case is facing challenges on how to proceed without the testimony of Mook since it is a general rule that a testimony cannot be used unless the witness testifies in court because it is hearsay, which is evidence based on someone else’s report rather than the witness’s personal knowledge. The court through the presiding judges should therefore decide on the unavailability of the witness and then consider the admissibility of hearsay and then proceed with the case (Giannelli, 2009). Legal experts have affirmed that present evidence should be used in prosecuting individuals culpable of offences (Choo, 2012).
Choo, A. L.-T. (2012). Evidence. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Giannelli, P. C. (2009). Understanding evidence. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew