Investigation Procedures: Difference between revisions

The term “minor offense” means misconduct normally handled by Commanding Officers under Article 15 and administered during Office Hours/Captain's Mast, as per the SFUCMJ, and thus does not fall into the scope of this document.

In the Star Fleet criminal justice system, the service members are represented by three separate yet equally important groups: The Star Fleet Security units who strive to maintain law and order within their assigned commands, The Star Fleet Security and Investigative Service (SFSECIS) who investigate the crime(s), and the Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Corps who defend & prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. Bum bum.

* Star Fleet Security – The traditional ‘Military Police’ of Star Fleet, safeguarding the lives and property on ships, star bases, and other installations. Often personnel have a dual MOS in Ship/Star Base Tactical Systems.<br>

* Star Fleet Security and Investigative Service (SFSECIS) – the ‘Detectives’ of Star Fleet, investigating criminal and intelligence activity on Star Fleet installations. Similar to the US FBI or UK MI-5.<br>

* Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Corps (SFJAG) - The final step in the legal process. Trial Counsel(s), Defense Counsel(s) and Military Judge(s) process accused offenders through a fair and impartial court-martial process not unlike (or perhaps better than) most civilian courts.<br>  

SFSECIS Agents are civilian law enforcement professionals sworn into duty in Star Fleet, however, do not operate within the chains of command in any branch of Star Fleet. As such, they are not subject to orders of any officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned offer. Thus, SFSECIS Agents cannot be intimidated, influenced, or otherwise coerced by anyone with regard to the outcome of a pending investigation. SFSECIS Agents can operate free from undue influence or conflicts of interest; exercise legal authority to determine probable cause, make necessary arrests, and refer charges to the appropriate SFJAG unit for review.  

<h4 style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS','Arial'; color: royalblue; font-weight: bold;">Multi-Unit Cooperation</h4>

* Often Star Fleet Security personnel will be the first to report alleged or actual crime(s). In addition to the normal chain of command reporting duties, the unit's Commanding Officer (or Officer in nominal/temporary command) is required by regulations to make the initial assessment as to whether the crime(s) warrant being handled by that unit's Commanding Officer via administrative actions, under Article 15/Office Hours/Captain's Mast OR must be referred for investigation and potential court-martial-martial under SFUCMJ Article 32. (See MINOR OFFENSE above).  

* If the Commanding Officer deems the crime(s) that, per regulations warrant review for a potential court-martial-martial, they will notify the appropriate Commander, Divisional Star Base Officer JAG (COMDSOJAG) and SFSECIS field office that has jurisdiction over that command (SFUCMJ 833-33). COMDSOJAG will review the evidence of the allegation(s) and determine the necessary course of action, including an Article 32 Investigation, Charges and Specifications, and referral for convening a court-martial.  

* On infrequent occasions, SFSECIS field offices may be made aware of crimes directly reported by victims, civilians, or civilian law enforcement agencies. Regarding the latter, the SFSECIS will extend the same multi-departmental court-martials to streamline any investigation process.  

* SFSECIS is bound by the SFUCMJ to extradite any Star Fleet personnel charged with a crime(s) in due process, to any local, national, or planetary government of a Federation member or protectorate  

Star Fleet Security personnel are usually first on the scene, where they may stop a crime in progress and detain offenders or suspects. If the crime was already committed, SFSECIS Agents will try to piece together exactly what happened. Either way, they follow a comprehensive process to gather evidence in support of a criminal charge and conviction.

* Define a security perimeter to maintain the integrity of the crime scene

* Identify, collect, document and preserve any evidence

* Gather latent evidence such as fingerprints, chemicals, and bodily fluids

* The suspect(s) is or may still be at the scene.

* The situation is, or may be, a danger to the life or safety of a person, including the life or safety of responding Star Fleet personnel in any capacity.  

* The criminal act(s) has concluded at the scene.

* The situation at the scene no longer represents a danger to the life or safety of a person, including Security Personnel.

'''Evidence forms the building blocks of the investigative process and for the final product to be built properly, evidence must be recognized, collected, documented, protected, validated, analyzed, disclosed, and presented in a manner that is acceptable to the court-martial proceedings.'''

The term “evidence,” as it relates to the investigation, speaks to a wide range of information sources that might eventually inform the court-martial to prove or disprove points at issue before the trier of fact. Sources of evidence can consist of anything from the observations of witnesses to the examination and analysis of physical objects. It can even include the spatial relationships between people, places, and objects within the timeline of events. From the various forms of evidence, the Military Judge(s) can draw inferences and reach conclusions to determine if a charge has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

A competent, compellable, independent, eyewitness with excellent physical and mental capabilities, who has seen the criminal event(s) take place and can recount the facts will generally satisfy the Military Judge(s) and provide evidence that has high probative value.

The Military Judge(s) will also generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. Physical evidence is highly valued because they are items the court-martial can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Physical evidence can include just about anything, such as weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impressions, hair, fiber, or body fluids. These kinds of physical exhibits of evidence can be examined and analyzed by experts who can provide the members of the court-martial with expert opinions that connect the item of evidence to a person, place, or criminal event. This allows the court-martial to consider circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene or the accused to the victim.

Relevant evidence speaks to an issue before the court-martial in relation to the charge being heard. Relevant evidence includes both direct evidence and indirect circumstantial evidence. For either direct or indirect circumstantial evidence to be considered relevant to the court-martial, it must relate to the elements of the offense that need to be proven. If the evidence does not relate to proving the place, time, identity of the accused, or criminal acts within the offense itself, the evidence will not be considered relevant to the charge.  

 

The Trial Counsel(s) may present evidence in the form of a physical exhibit that members of the court-martial can see and examine to consider, or they may present evidence in the form of witness testimony, in which case the witness is telling the members of the court-martial what they perceived within the limits of their senses.

Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point in fact without interpretation of circumstances. It is any evidence that can show members of the court-martial that something occurred without the need for the Military Judge(s) to make inferences or assumptions to reach a conclusion. An eyewitness who saw the accused shoot a victim would be able to provide direct evidence. Similarly, a security camera showing the accused committing a crime or a statement of confession from the accused admitting to the crime could also be considered direct evidence. Direct evidence should not be confused with the concept of direct examination, which is the initial examination and questioning of a witness at trial by the party who called that witness. And, although each witness who provides evidence could, in theory, be providing direct testimony of their own knowledge and experiences, that evidence is often not direct evidence of the offense itself.

Indirect evidence, also called circumstantial evidence, is all other evidence, such as the fingerprint of an accused found at the crime scene. Indirect evidence does not by itself prove the offence, but through interpretation of the circumstances and in conjunction with other evidence may contribute to a body of evidence that could prove guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. Strong circumstantial evidence that only leads to one logical conclusion can sometimes become the evidence the Military Judge(s) use in reaching belief by a preponderance of the evidence to convict an accused. It requires assumptions and logical inferences to be made by the court-martial to attribute meaning to the evidence.

Circumstantial evidence of opportunity can be illustrated by showing a suspect(s) had access to a victim or a crime scene at the time of the criminal event, and this access provided an opportunity to commit the crime.

Circumstantial evidence of means can sometimes be demonstrated by showing the suspect(s) had the physical capabilities and/or the tools or weapons to commit the offense.

Presenting this kind of circumstantial evidence can assist members of the court-martial in confirming assumptions and inferences to reach conclusions assigning probative value to connections between the accused and a person or a place and the physical evidence. These circumstantial connections can create the essential links between a suspect and the crime.

Inculpatory evidence is any evidence that will directly or indirectly link an accused person to the offense being investigated. For SFSECIS Agents, inculpatory evidence can be found in the victim’s complaint, physical evidence, witness accounts, or circumstantial relationships that are examined, analyzed, and recorded during the investigative process. It can be anything from the direct evidence of an eyewitness who saw the accused committing the crime(s) to the circumstantial evidence of a fingerprint found in a location connecting the accused to the victim or the crime scene.

Naturally, direct evidence that shows the accused committed the crime is the preferred inculpatory evidence, but, in practice, this is frequently not available. The SFSECIS Agents must look for and interpret other sources for evidence and information. Often, many pieces of circumstantial evidence are required to build a case that allows the SFSECIS Agents to achieve reasonable grounds to believe and enables the court-martial to reach their belief by a preponderance of the evidence.

A single fingerprint found on the outside door of a stolen runabout would not be sufficient for the court-martial-martial to find an accused guilty of small craft theft. However, if you added witness evidence to show that the accused was seen near the runabout at the time it was stolen, a security recording of the accused entering the runabout, and the suspect was captured while in the runabout, the court-martial would likely have proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

If an abundance of inculpatory circumstantial evidence can be acquired for presentation to members of the court-martial that leads to a single logical conclusion, the Military Judge(s) will often reach their conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence, unless exculpatory evidence is presented by the defense to create a reasonable doubt.

Exculpatory evidence is the exact opposite of inculpatory evidence in that it tends to show the accused person or the suspect did not commit the offense. It is important for an SFSECIS Agent to not only look for inculpatory evidence but to also consider evidence from an exculpatory perspective. Considering evidence from the exculpatory perspective demonstrates that an SFSECIS Agent is being objective and is not falling into the trap of tunnel vision. If it is possible to find exculpatory evidence that shows the suspect is not responsible for the offense, it is helpful for Agents because it allows for the elimination of that suspect and the redirecting of the investigation to pursue the real perpetrator.

The term corroborative evidence essentially refers to any type of evidence that tends to support the meaning, validity, or truthfulness of another piece of evidence that has already been presented to members of the court-martial. A piece of corroborative evidence may take the form of a physical item, such as a DNA sample from an accused matching the DNA found on a victim, thus corroborating a victim’s testimony. Corroborative evidence might also come from the statement of one independent witness providing testimony that matches the account of events described by another witness. If it can be shown that these two witnesses were separated and did not collaborate or hear each other’s account, their statements could be accepted by the court-martial as mutually corroborative accounts of the same event.

Military Judges assign a great deal of probative value to corroborative evidence because it assists the court-martial in reaching their belief by a preponderance of the evidence. For SFSECIS Agents, it is important to not just look for the minimum amount of evidence apparent at the scene of a crime. The investigation must also seek out other evidence that can corroborate the facts attested to by witnesses or victims in their accounts of the event. An interesting example of corroborative evidence can be found in the court-martial’s acceptance of SFSECIS Agents notes as being circumstantially corroborative of that officer’s evidence and account of the events. When SFSECIS Agents testify in a court-martial, they are usually given permission by the Military Judge(s) to refer to their notes to refresh their memory and provide a full account of the events. If the SFSECIS Agent(s) notes are detailed and accurate, members of the court-martial can give significant weight to the Agent's account of those events. If the notes lack detail or are incomplete on significant points, the court-martial may assign less value to the accuracy of the SFSECIS Agent's account.

It is important for an SFSECIS Agent to be aware that all aspects of their investigation may become subject to disclosure as potential evidence for court-martial. As part of the process of fundamental justice within the SFUCMJ, a person charged with an offense has the right to full disclosure of all the evidence of the investigation. This means that any evidence or information gathered during the SFSECIS investigation must be available for the defense to review and determine if that evidence could assist the accused in presenting a defense to the charge before the court-martial.

In the disclosure process, the decision to disclose or not to disclose is the exclusive domain of the crown prosecutor and, although SFSECIS Agent(s) may submit information and evidence to the Trial Counsel(s) with the request that the information be considered an exception to the disclosure rules, the final decision is that of the presiding Military Judge(s). That said, even their decision may be challenged by the defense, and that then becomes a final decision for the Judge. The Trial Counsel(s) will ask the SFSECIS Agent(s) to provide a full disclosure of the evidence gathered during their investigation.

* Charging document

* Particulars of the offense

* Witness statements

* Audio/holographic evidence statements by witnesses

* Statements by the accused

* Accused’s criminal record

* Expert witness reports

* PADDs and SFSECIS reports

* Exhibits

* Search warrants

* Authorizations to intercept private communications

* Similar fact evidence

* Identification evidence

* Witnesses’ criminal records

* Reports to SFJAG recommending charges

* Witness impeachment material

It is worth stressing that SFSECIS notes and reports relating to the investigation are typically studied very carefully by the Defense Counsel(s) to ensure they are complete and have been completely disclosed. Disclosure will also include investigation notes and reports that relate to alternate persons considered, investigated, and eliminated as suspects in the crime for which the accused is being tried. If alternate suspects were identified and not eliminated during the investigation, that lack of investigation may form the basis for a defense to the charge.

 

* Information that is clearly irrelevant

* Information that is considered privileged

* Information that would expose an ongoing SFSECIS investigation

* Information that would compromise the safety of a witness

 

For SFSECIS Agents, the requirement to comply with disclosure is one of the best reasons to make sure notes and reports are complete and accurately reflect the investigation and actions taken during the investigation. From members of the court-martial’s perspective, there will never be any excuse for an SFSECIS Agent to intentionally conceal or fail to disclose evidence or information.

Witness evidence is evidence acquired from any person who may be able to provide members of the court-martial with information that will assist in the adjudication of the charges being tried. This means that witnesses are not only persons found as victims of a crime or on-scene observers of the criminal event. They may also be persons who can inform members of the court-martial on events leading up to the crime, or activities taking place after the crime.

These after-the-crime activities do not just relate to the activities of the suspect but also include the entire range of activities required to investigate the crime. Consequently, every SFSECIS Agent involved in the investigation, and every person involved in the handling, examination, and analysis of evidence to be presented in court-martial, is a potential witness.

 

'''The Military Judge(s) will consider accepting hearsay evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule in cases where:'''

* By consent of the person being searched

* On the authority of a search warrant  

* As part of a search incidental to the lawful arrest of a suspect

* As part of a safety search incidental to the lawful detention of a suspect

* Under the doctrine of evidence in plain view at a lawfully entered crime scene

 

It is important to note that when evidence is being presented to members of the court-martial, the SFSECIS Agent(s) will be held accountable for providing an explanation of the circumstances under which an item of evidence was searched for and seized. This may involve the SFSECIS Agent(s) articulating not only details of how they discovered the item, but also circumstances to illustrate the offense committed and their authority to arrest, detain, and/or enter a crime scene lawfully

In hearing any case, the Military Judge(s) has the authority to either accept or exclude any piece of evidence being presented. An evaluation is applied to all evidence to determine if it will be admissible or excluded. The types of evidence that can be admitted or excluded range from the physical exhibits found at the crime scene, to the accounts of events provided by witnesses to a confession taken from a suspect. For SFSECIS Agents, it is important to understand that any piece of evidence could be challenged by the defense for exclusion. If challenged, the presiding Military Judge(s) will decide if evidence should be excluded based on a number of rules and depending on the type of evidence being presented.

Section 859.59.1 of the SFUCMJ states:

 

 

 

 

 

As a member of Star Fleet, Star Fleet Marine Corps or a civilian role in either service, your rights include:

*The right to present evidence, including oral or written statements, documentary evidence, and the statements of other individuals

*The right to be protected against compulsory self-incrimination

*The right to not be forced to answer questions or provide information that might be used against them in a criminal proceeding

 

'''The Right to Remain Silent:''' Service members have the right to refrain from providing any information or statements that could be used against them in a court-martial or other military proceedings.<br>

 

'''Notification of Rights and Accusations:''' Before any questioning takes place, military personnel must be informed of their rights under Article 31. They must also be made aware of the nature of the allegations or charges being brought against them.<br>

 

'''Inadmissibility of Improperly Obtained Statements:''' Any information obtained in violation of a service member’s Article 31 rights may be deemed inadmissible. This can significantly impact the prosecution’s case and potentially lead to the dismissal of charges.<br>

 

'''Legal Recourse for Violations:''' A service member may believe that their Article 31 rights have been violated. If so, it is crucial to seek legal assistance from a qualified military defense attorney as soon as possible. This will help ensure their rights are protected. The attorney can also determine how to address potential violations or mitigate their impact on the individual’s military career.

* When military personnel act as investigators or interrogators, or within the chain of command in a disciplinary capacity, they must warn a suspect under Article 31(b) prior to asking the suspect any questions.

 

* Civilians acting as agents of the military must comply with Article 31b. This includes agents of the Star Fleet Security and Investigative Service (SFSECIS) and the Star Fleet Marine Corps' Criminal Investigation Division (SFMC-CID).

* No charge or specification may be referred to any court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline (SFUCMJ 832-32.1).  

(3) apprehend and arrest the perpetrator (SFUMCJ 809.9 and 810.10)<br>  

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two very important legal concepts in a criminal case. They could have a direct impact on whether Star Fleet Security or SFSECIS Agents have the authority to detain you, arrest you, and take other actions in your case. An experienced Defense Counsel may be able to prove that law enforcement officials lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause as a way to get the charges against you dismissed or reduced to a less serious offense (SFUCMJ 809.9).

Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard that the SFSECIS must meet in order to briefly detain a person and search him for a weapon. This standard is not as high as for probable cause. The SFSECIS Agents must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently in the process of committing a crime, or plans to commit a crime (SFUCMJ 807.7).

Under The Charter of the United Federation of Planets, people are protected from unreasonable searches or seizures or the issuance of a search warrant without probable cause. In order to establish probable cause to arrest someone, the Star Fleet Security personnel/SFSECIS Agents must have sufficient knowledge of facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is, or will be committed and that the person being investigated committed the offense. Arrests made with or without a warrant must be based on probable cause.

Scientific discoveries in a wide range of disciplines have contributed to the development and evolution of forensic specialties in:

* Hair and fiber

<h3 style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS','Arial'; color: royalblue; font-weight: bold;">Court-Martial Process</h3>

In the trial of a person charged with an offense in a court-martial proceeding, the Military Judge(s) will hear the evidence and arguments presented by both the Trial Counsel(s) and Defense Counsel(s). The Trial Counsel(s) and the Defense exist in a court-martial in an adversarial relationship with the onus resting on the Trial Counsel(s) to prove the facts of the case by a preponderance of the evidence. The defense may challenge the evidence, question the testimony and the credibility of witnesses, and present alternate theories of events or evidence, where the accused person could be considered not responsible or sometimes less responsible for the alleged offense.

<h4 style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS','Arial'; color: royalblue; font-weight: bold;">Members of a Court-Martial</h4>

* President of the Court (Presiding Judge, ranking senior officer of the Court)

* Trial Counsel(s) (May work independently or with an assistant/co-counsel) (Prosecutor in civilian courts)

* Defense Counsel(s) (May work independently or with an assistant/co-counsel)

* Member Panels (similar to civilian juries)

* Interpreter (may be made on request of the either party in lieu of/in addition to the Universal Translator)

<h4 style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS','Arial'; color: royalblue; font-weight: bold;">Burden of Proof</h4>

A Preponderance of Evidence is the standard measure of proof that the criminal court-martial will apply when determining if the evidence presented by the Trial Counsel(s) is sufficient to convict the person charged with an offense. If the evidence is sufficient, and the burden of proof has been satisfied, the court-martial may convict the accused. In these cases, the onus to prove all the elements of the charge rests completely with the Trial Counsel(s). The accused person is not required to prove that they are innocent.