Evidence: Ethical Dilemmas Read the scenario provided below. After reading the scenario, you will have to prepare a response using two critical lenses. The first critical lens will be from a detective’s perspective. The second critical lens will be from a judge’s perspective. From each critical lens, you are to answer the following questions and provide justification for your answers: 1. Was direct or circumstantial evidence used in the scenario? 2. Was documentary evidence used? 3. If documentary evidence was used, was it primary or secondary evidence? 4. What evidence collection procedures were used in the scenario? 5. What written policies concerning evidence collection procedures were implied by the scenario? 6. Would the evidence be admissible in trial? You will also need to provide a summarization paragraph in which you will discuss which lens was the most difficult to answer the questions from and why. In this paragraph, you will also identify any aspect of the scenario to which information shared in the textbook could not be applied. Each section of your case study must be clearly labeled using the following section headings: Lens 1: Detective Lens 2: Judge Summary Each section should be a minimum of 100 words. Your entire case study should be at least two pages. Be sure to cite, in APA format, any source used to influence your response. Therefore, your reference list should include a citation of the textbook, as you are required to apply the concepts discussed in the textbook to the scenario. Scenario: During an evening newscast, an update was provided on the stolen wares that were taken during a community festival. The newscast relayed that a few days after the festival, several of the stolen wares were found in a dumpster near an area that was used as the festival food court. Several of the sanitation workers that had been on-site during the festival reported that they had noticed people standing around the dumpsters prior to the police officers’ arrival. Each sanitation worker’s interview varied in regards to the suspects’ descriptions. While the accused were detained in the local jail, several suspects sent correspondence to their family members concerning the incident and their subsequent treatment in the jail. Copies of those letters were obtained from family members, and the original letters were obtained from the jail’s mail department where returned or undeliverable items were stored.