Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Anti-harassment case study
Anti-harassment case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Anti-harassment case study
1). Form of Evidence Evidence the Crown is Relying on
Oral Evidence Sarah Jennings was asked to provide testimony in regards to Nick Casey’s comments to her about his relationship with Todd Williams. Since there is no documentary evidence as to what Mr. Casey told Mrs. Jennings, she will have to provide any testimony verbally and under oath.
Real Evidence The hand written note left by Nick Casey in Todd Williams’s locker would fall under real evidence rather than documentary, as the original note was being presented to the trier of fact. Furthermore, the note would also fall under the category of real evidence as it was produced when Mr. Casey and Mr. Williams’s altercation took place.
Documentary Evidence The video surveillance tape from
…show more content…
Mr. Casey’s confession to the police should be admissible in court because it passes the Oickle rule, established in R v Oickle, ([2000]) 2 S.C.R. 3). First, Mr. Casey’s confession was told to the police and therefore the confession was made to a person in authority. R v Hodgon, ([1998] 2 SCR 449), sets out the test for determining whether someone is in a position of authority. The test asks if it is reasonable for the accused to assume that the person would have influence over the prosecution. Based on the definition, police would fall under a position of authority. Secondly, Mr. Casey’s confession was given voluntarily; he was not threatened by the police or given any promises in order to manipulate a confession. Furthermore, Mr. Casey was not subjected to any oppressive circumstances. In addition, Mr. Casey was of sound mind when he gave the confession to the police and he was fully aware of the charges he was being accused of. Finally, the police deliberately lied to Mr. Casey when they informed him that Mr. Williams’s neighbour witnessed him threatening Mr. Williams. While the officer’s used trickery, Mr. Casey’s confession is ultimately admissible because the lie told Mr. Casey was told did not take away his liberties and Mr. Casey had the choice of whether or not to confess to the …show more content…
The Crown should be permitted to introduce Dr. Doolittle as an expert witness based on the criteria for determining the credibility of an expert witness, which was established in R v Mohan ([1994]) 2 SCR 9). The first part of the test asks if the information the expert is providing is relevant to the case and if it helps a party prove their proposition. The trier of law than weighs the probative value and the prejudicial value of the information. Dr. Doolittle was asked to provide expert handwriting analysis for a note that Nick Casey wrote to his boss, Todd Williams. The Crown’s issue is determining whether or not Mr. Casey wrote the note. Therefore, it is relevant for the Crown to rely on Dr. Doolittle to provide expert opinion and compare the handwritten note that Mr. Casey wrote to Mr. Williams with a sample of Mr. Casey’s handwriting. The information is ultimately more probative, as Dr. Doolittle’s expert opinion is being relied upon to prove the crown’s argument. Furthermore, Dr. Doolittle’s testimony on the validity of the notes can be connected to the other evidence that Mr. Casey harassed Mr. Williams. The second part of the test asks if the expert witness is providing necessary testimony. The Crown is trying to establish that Mr. Casey was guilty of criminal harassment by repeatedly trying to communicate with Mr. Williams. If Dr. Doolittle can successfully prove that Mr. Casey wrote the note to Mr. Williams, it can be considered as another piece of evidence
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
Is Steve Harmon innocent or guilty you decide. Steve Harmon is put on trial of the murder of Mr. Nesbitt and the robbery of his drug store. During the trail Steve Harmon is seen as guilty by the prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli. The witness Allen Forbes testimony proves that the gun used in the murder was registered under Mr. Nesbitt. This helps prove that the gun was used in the murder and the robbery and the gun was later found in the store. This witness helped me prove that Steve Harmon could have used the gun to kill Mr. Nesbitt or had taken part in the robbery at some point in the crime. “I went around behind the counter and I saw Mr. Nesbitt on the floor—there was blood everywhere and the cash register was open. A lot of cigarettes were
On 1997 four men were convicted of the rape and murder of Michelle Basko. The four men were Joe Dick, Daniel Williams, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice. Detective Robert Ford believed that the four U.S. navy men were all guilty of the crime. One of the victim’s friend claimed that Daniel Williams, was Michelle Basko’s murderer. Based on the information provided by Basko’s friend, Ford suspected that William was guilty. With that, the series of harsh interrogations led by detective Robert Ford began. Detective Ford began his interrogatories with a label that Williams is the suspect. The psychological abuse he used, led Williams to make a false confession. After closing the case, the DNA results did not match the one in the crime scene. Instead of releasing Williams, it was believed that Joe
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
“First. Shapelle’s prime witness, John ford. All evidence created by the witness was hearsay, unfounded information. He did not witness any of the facts behind his allegations. Just said what he had heard from other people. There was no actual proof that the drugs were planted in Shapelle Corby’s bag.”
Throughout the years, this clause has been very controversial. In the 2004 case, Crawford vs. Washington; Michael Crawford and his wife, Sylvia Crawford had approached a man by the name of Kenneth Lee. There had been alleged allegations that Lee had tried to rape Mrs. Crawford. In the midst of the confrontation, Michael Crawford stabbed Lee in his torso. Michael then claimed he only did it acting in self-defense because he thought Lee had just picked up a weapon and was going to attack him first. In the trial for this case, Mrs. Crawford declined to testify against her husband, and was not required to do so under spousal privilege. However, her testimonial statement was later used against her husband because the facts of her statement and the facts in his statements were a little different. Noticeably, whether Lee was armed and made an advance prior to his stabbing came into question. Mr. Crawford was charged with assault and attempted murder. He was found guilty. The court found Crawford guilty based on his wife’s recorded statements, describing the stabbing that took place that the prosecutors played in court. The statement contradicted Michael’s defense that he stabbed Lee in self-defense of his wife. After this incident, the Confrontation Clause was put into effect. It serves two purposes. First, it protects the defendant from statements made outside of a court being used against a person when they have no opportunity to test or challenge the alleged statement, and second the Confrontation Clause gives a defendant the oppor...
McAlister case valid rules of evidence and testimony were used to prove Jose McAlister is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, circumstantial evidence demonstrated a factual matter by proving other events from which the occurrence of the matter can be reasonably inferred. The evidence of the map found in McAlister’s car proved there was a relationship between McAlister and the murder of the victim Venzie Viktum. Furthermore, the evidence received by law enforcement was relevant, reliable, and competent. The evidence was gathered by a probable cause and was not prejudicial, misleading, inaccurate or distracting. The court case had many valid testimony’s that prove Jose is guilty of the charges against him. The prosecutions’ witness Willy will testify at the preliminary hearing and admitted he was in a drug distribution conspiracy with Jose. Additionaly the prosecutions discovery would be available and applicable to be called by the intern at the government laboratory that conducted the certificate of analysis analyzing the evidence found and the body. The prosecution has plans to call Jose’s former attorney that knows everything about Jose’s illegal activities. Futheremore the prosecution will also call Nancy Nozzy who is the neighborhood watch caption that information. The expert testimony from the government laboratory has specialized knowledge that will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence that Jose was guilty. The testimonies from
In the case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Pennsylvania law required an informed consent and a twenty-four-hour waiting period before an abortion could be performed, parental or judicial consent for minors, spousal notification, and comprehensive record keeping and reporting. Many clinics challenged the Pennsylvania law after it went in affect. However, in a controversial decision, the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court in a 5-4 decision reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions, except for the husband notification. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
‘Judges, lawyers and psychologists believe it to be just about the least trustworthy kind of evidence of guilt, whereas jurors have always found it more persuasive that any other sort of evidence’ Brown (1986)
As outlined above, the large number of issues Aboriginal witnesses face highlights the necessity for providing adequate mechanisms for overcoming them. Hence, it is only fitting to highlight the number of provisions available in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) that provide for the manner of questioning witnesses and evaluate whether they are sufficient. The first of such relevant provisions is s26 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) which gives the court control over the questioning of witnesses while s29 provides the manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses. As mentioned in the introduction, the operation of these provisions allows witnesses to present their evidence in narrative form pursuant to section 29 (2) . The narrative
The problem with unrecorded interrogations is that videotaped confessions are often entered into court as evidence without allowing the judge or jury to observe the circumstances under which the confession was given. In a recent case, 52-year-old Conrado Juarez confessed to the 1991 rape and murder of his cousin, Anjelica Castillo, known in the media as Baby Hope (McKinley & Goldstein, 2013). The four-year-old girl’s body had been found in a cooler on the side of the Henry Hudson Parkway and gone unidentified until October 2013 when Juarez confessed to helping his now deceased sister move her body there. After 12 hours of interrogation, however, Juarez confessed much more. The confession was videotaped, but the 12-hour long interrogation was not. Juarez retracted his confession soon afterwards, claiming that he was exhausted from the prolonged questioning and...
Some individuals believe that some hearsay should be admissible and others should be excluded. In California v. Green, the Supreme Court rejected challenges to the use of statements by a witness who appeared forgetful and evasive at trail. This witness has also previously implicated the defendant while speaking with the police and in testimony at the defendants hearing. (Criminal Evidence: An Introduction, Pg. 287) The Reliability Theory comes into play with this case.
Without accepting confessions as legitimate form of evidence to be used in the court of law, the justice system would be in complete disarray what with most suspects making confessions to the police, also having a high likelihood of going on to be convicted. Confessional evidence is of great importance seeing as it is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Although it is of high regard in evidential law, it would be naïve to say that the law on confessions is down to perfection, especially with such high-profile cases such as the Guildford four or Birmingham six which brought to the surface the potential possibility of fabrication by police and perversion of the use of confessional evidence to bring about a certain result in a case. While known as the most powerful form of evidence to be adduced, it is also known as the “best and worst form of evidence” to deal with. Whether the implementations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has succeeded to remedy the dilemmas in respect to confession is up for discussion.