1. The mental processes are referred to as memories of an eyewitness. When they are being interrogated, there are the aspects, which are usually initiated. They include the confidence of the witnesses at the time they are identifying the suspects. The type of view they had when they saw the suspect should be also considered. The police will also look at their ability to make a facial composite print of the suspect, which must be supported by identifying the suspect. The police will also look at the information provided by the witnesses and the logic behind it. If these establishments do not meet the requirements, the information will be considered void or invalid.
2. Eyewitness identification procedure is regarded to be relative and not reliable enough . A witness does not usually have a clear picture of the suspect in mind. Therefore, their answers may not be clear and firm. It has also been recorded that eyewitnesses will always pick the pictures that resemble the suitable suspect or culprit the most. Such decision strategy is usually associated with different consequences. One of them is picking of false witnesses, who may be unsure in their evidence.
3. The three justifications were created according to the fourth amendment that provides people with rights in order to secure their houses, documents and other personal possessions. With regards to this rule, all this is protected from being violated as there is no acceptance in the issuance of warrants unless through probable cause which should be supported by oaths and affirmations. The justifications are the following:
- One will have the right to personal privacy.
- No search should be conducted without warranty from the judge.
- One should deter the police.
The Supreme Court always uses the first justification, which gives individuals their personal privacy.
4. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule:
- The evidence can be unlawfully acquired from the defendants if it is obtained by a private individual.
- The same should be applied to the government officials.
- The evidence is to be suppressed if the warranty was breached as per the expected amendment.
- If the police have breached the rule, the defendant should not take advantage of the situation.
- The police acting in good faith in reference to bona fides should be allowed to present the evidence found after giving the warranty. This is known as a good faith exception.
5.The subjective test is all about the state of mind of the individual being accused. For instance, one might want to sustain the entrapment. Therefore, this would mean that the accused would have to prove that the government agent was the one responsible for the offence committed. On the other hand, the objective test refers to the preposition of the accused that is not coming into play.
6. The defense of entrapment is not accepted under the Constitution of the United States. It can be only changed by the Congress so long as justice is carried out.
7. The qualified immunity is all about the defense, which is usually given against a state official. This is under the 42 U.S.C sections, 1983. The first element is based on establishing the law governing the official. The second element is based on the law officer believing that the conduct was unlawful.
8. The first state lawsuit is the legislative immunity, which implies that the members acting under a legislative capacity will be immune from any lawsuit that may be obtained from damages or prospective relief. The other one is the witness immunity where any witness of the federal law in search or arrest warrant is not liable for any lawsuit.
9. It is not easy to sue a judge or a prosecutor as they are protected under the legislative immunity.