Role Of Prosecutor Essays Examples

Role of a Prosecutor

A prosecutor is a legal representative (or chief legal representative) who is primarily responsible for presenting a case during a criminal trial. The trial may be of an individual or more than individual accused of breaking the law. The case in discussion here is about the State Government and an individual. In this case, the police conducted a routine traffic check that in the end resulted in the arrest of a driver who was driving under the influence of alcohol. He also gave the police false information. After a thorough search, the individual was found with a revolver. With this new finding, the man was arrested and arraigned in court.
While in court, he reasoning behind the prosecutor was that, when an officer of the law makes an arrest, he may conduct a search incident; this is according to the Eleventh Circuit and most jurisdictions. The court denied the man a fair motion to suppress and convicted him on the firearms charge. The function of the prosecutor in this case was simple; he was responsible for the prosecution of the man. Another duty that was brought out in the case was that, the prosecutor is meant to provide justice and not merely condemn any person found on the wrong side of the law. While in court, it was clear that the prosecutor was guided by the standards of professional conduct, and made use of the guidance that was afforded to him by the advisory council.
This was a clear case of indicative nature in that there was a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was a case to answer in court or by a grand jury. This offence is an indictable offence that is charged under Section 553 of Criminal Code offence, which says that any jurisdiction court of justice with any respect to the trial of offenders is set forth in laws relating to the constitution and jurisdiction of those courts respectively. The prosecutor conducted a cross-examination where he called the witness to interrogate them then conducted a direct examination. Typically, he is not permitted to ask any questions that do not pertain to the testimony offered during the direct examination. The primary goal for the cross-examination was to get favorable points or facts directly from the witness. This produced critical evidence for the trial especially when the witness provided contradictory testimonies with the previous one. The examination-in-chief was conducted systematically, and the evidence appeared to flow effortlessly from the witness. The witness in this case seemed to have a good memory. Examination in chief in this case became the starting point for the litigation. Among the objectives achieved from examination-in-chief included understanding and remembering, getting the fact that the evidence was admissible, and finally each element of the offence was proven beyond a reasonable doubt through oral testimony and exhibits.
The prosecutor’s burden of proof was not a tight job, since the case was easy. Having all the evidence and the witness to the case, the prosecutor had an easy task to prove the fact that the accused was guilty of the offence he was charged with. In this case, the prosecutor proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was lawfully convicted. Another part in which the prosecutor played his role well was the part of persuading the jury that he satisfied with every evidence and witness testimonies presented before them. This apparently built the defendant’s guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.