It was held in this Court that Mr. Smith broke into his neighbor’s house and stole goods, which were found in his possession by the police, and was arrested. The accused violated the Constitutional law, and the violation of American Constitution is punishable. After cross examination, the court has received evidence against the accused. The evidence produced and the arresting procedure can not held the accused responsible for the crime committed. The fact that the stolen goods were found in the accused house cannot prove that the accused took them, since the owner went into the accused house and found the property and then without questioning, he rushed to call the police. The incidence can be a frame or a set up to hold the accused guilty. The court finds the accused innocent.
Firstly, Mr. Smith’s neighbor forced in the house to find his property, and nobody told him that the property had been taken by Mr. Smith. After the property was lost, the neighbor did not report the incident to police, neither did he inform anybody; he went directly to his friends’ house. Mr. Smith and his neighbor have been friends for some time, and this means that they know and understand each other. Mostly, friends end up with jealousy. When there is a difference in financial ability and life progress, it results into jealousy, which makes the friend with less fortune find ways to disable his friend so that they can be equal. From the argument and facts brought in court, since the neighbor did not report the loss of the property, but reported the recovery of the stolen goods, the property cannot be termed as stolen. It is possible that Smith took them because they were friends and out of grudge, the neighbor decided to accuse his friend. There is no enough proof that the property was taken by Smith and put in the house. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for an individual to keep the stolen property in the house while he knows that a search will be conducted.
The second fact/argument is that the search was conducted without a warrant. According to the American Constitution, a search is supposed to be conducted after the issuance of search warrant, unless the suspect has committed a recognizable offence. Smith did not commit a recognizable offence since nobody found him committing the crime or breaking into the house. In this case, a search without warrant should have been conducted if Smith’s neighbor found him breaking into his house. The search was in violation of Mr. Smith’s rights since his neighbor forced himself to the house and recognized his stolen property. The neighbor was rushing to hand Smith to police, and this made the police conduct the search without a warrant. The procedure taken did not follow the right order, and the court cannot hold any evidence or proceed with investigation which violates human rights.
Sociologically, friends live together and share some things in common, and it is hard to find people who do not have misunderstandings. From sociological perspective, Smith could not have taken his friends property; instead, he could have stolen from another person and gave his neighbor a share. Friends know each other and it is easy for them to help or betray each other. Most of the people are betrayed by their friends, and when a person prospers many people develop jealous feelings and find ways to destroy his/her repetition, and it might be the case with Mr. Smith and his neighbor. Smith’s neighbor might have acted out of jealousy and forced himself to enter Smith’s house since he knew the property was in the house. The force which the plaintiff used to enter Smith’s house shows that he knew what will happen and was sure that the property was in the house. Sociologically, an individual cannot force things to be done when he/she is not 100 % sure that what he/she insists on is true. For example, those who bid cannot take a bid without winning confidence. According to sociological arguments presented, Smith cannot be held responsible for the offence charged against.
Supreme Court philosophy should be adhered to. In this case, Mr. Smith cannot be held responsible for the crime. Cross examination of witness showed that he had personal interest and it was not much genuine. The philosophy also holds that a person should be proofed guilty beyond reasonable doubt; and from the hearing, there is no sufficient evidence to hold Mr. Smith guilty of the offence of burglary and in possession of stolen goods. Search warrant should be issued in case of non-recognizable offence for the Court to admit the evidence produced. However, Smith’s house was searched without warrant. According to the court’s philosophy, the court cannot hold Smith responsible for the offence. The court cannot hold the accused guilty, because they lived with the plaintiff, they were friends, and they shared the things, which means that Mr. Smith could have borrowed his neighbor’s property and the neighbor decided to set him up.
In conclusion, the court should make ruling according to professional code of ethics. All cases presented should be handled without discrimination or self interest. The case did not have sufficient evidence to hold Mr. James Smith responsible for the offence. The Court should act without corruptions and impose the right judgment in all cases. The evidence gathered and witness cross examined show that the case might have been presented with self interest. The doubt makes the Court unable to convict the accused.