R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly …show more content…
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that …show more content…
I created each section, following the requirements of the project, while adding in slides that would help further the understanding of the case. Moreover, I was in charge of allocating each member a part of the project and did so by starting a group chat, which I would check and regularly correspond with each member, helping them find information in both academic journals and online resources. For my specific part in the slides I focused on the controversial aspects of the case such as the guarantee of acquittal and stereotypes that may come about due to the branding of battered women and the use of expert testimony in which I focused on the charge to the jury and the usefulness of the expert. I used the textbook along with online resources and academic journals to understand both issues and to solidify a comprehensive anecdote on the topics. Finally I proof read each of the group member’s work and formatted it so each side looked the same and were appealing. I then compiled the sources used and put them into APA format in accordance with the schools citing
Since the second wave of feminism in the 1960’s women have demanded for equality rights. The R V. Ewanchuck case created many disagreement’s with feminists on the topic of rape myths. It has not only been seen as a precedent for the criminal law but as well an eye opener for the society to create awareness for this act. Since society continues to support most rape myths, it overlooks the act itself and puts the blame and responsibility on the victim as opposed to the perpetrator. This has created a rape culture within society. The term rape culture was created to demonstrate the ways in which victims were blamed for sexual assault, and how male sexual violence was normalized. Feminists are exploring the world of rape myths in Canadian law
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
Maidment, M. (2009). When justice is a game: Unravelling wrongful convictions in Canada. Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
Section 718.2e is a section of the Criminal code used to sentence aboriginal offenders. Its main purpose is to make the overrepresentation of aboriginal offending minimal. (Griffiths, 69). This idea was re established during the R.v. Gladue case in 1999 where the judge looked at the background factors that led the offender to commit a crime. Section 718.2e of the Criminal code states that the judge must consider the following:
The legal system is considered a place where justice is served and criminals are sent to prison. However, this is not always the case, as seen with Robert Baltovich, who suffered a serious miscarriage of justice. Baltovich was accused and unfairly convicted for a murder that he did not commit. The investigation into the murder of Elizabeth Bain was unfairly skewed to gain a conviction against Baltovich. The bias against Baltovich, in the murder investigation, and his subsequent trial was a disservice to him and to Canadian society.
trial of two men for the 1971 murder of Helen Betty Osborne in The Pas Manitoba.
The truth can sometimes depend on the circumstance and the person who states it. When confronted with conflicting accounts or questionable details, a judge within the court of law must decide the sentence of an individual with these obstacles in place. In this case, the defendant Dannie McGrew has been charged with the murder of Barney Quill, but claims that it was self-defense. The following contains a thorough explanation as to how the judge decided upon the verdict of acquittal.
Expert testimony in legal proceedings has been a subject of heated arguments of late; because of there have been numerous instances where scientific evidence has been misrepresented and fabricated to send innocent defendants to prison. The Frye standard served the purpose of general acceptance of scientific evidence was admissible in courts. However, the Criminal Justice system received a shock in 1993 when the Supreme Court gave the verdict that Frye test was insufficient as the general acceptance of scientific evidence. The Daubert vs. Merryl Dow case determined that Frye is no longer satisfactory to be admissible as scientific evidence; moreover, the Daubert test surpasses Frye, concerning the admissibility of scientific
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
The victim, John Kondejewski, a sergeant in the military as well as battle school instructor, was killed on May 15th, 1997 in Brandon Manitoba by the defendant, his wife, Kimberley Kondejewski, in the bedroom of their home (Sheehy 88). The couple was married for over 17 years before the proceeding occurred. Kimberly shot her husband three times that Thursday night; first shot to the chest, second and third shot were closer range, which led the police to charge her with first-degree murder (Sheehy 115). However, she also tried to end her life, fortunately she was only wounded. She even had composed a suicide note addressed to their children, Jennifer and Christopher. The judge assigned to the case was Justice Rodney H
In Anatomy of a Murder, there were four expert witnesses, Dr. Smith, Dr. Harcourt, Dr. Raschid, and Dr. Dompierre, who testified during the trial and gave their respected opinions based on their expertise about the evidence and stipulations raised. An expert witness is defined as a witness who has special knowledge or training in a specialized area (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg.123). The opinion of an expert witness may be admissible if the opinion is being given about a subject that can clear issues in the court. To determine whether or not the expert witness testimony is admissible, it must meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-704. In addition to reviewing each of the three Federal Rules of Evidence, I reviewed each of the four expert witness testimonies and analyzed whether or not each testimony complied each Federal Rule of evidence.