Legal Case Analysis
1. In this matter I am asked to advise those instructing me as to whether the prosecution can adduce evidence of a written statement of a witness unwilling to testify at trial and secondly how her evidence might be presented if she decides to give evidence at trial.
2. I understand that Chrissie lives within close proximity to the scene of the crime and is in fact a ‘next door neighbour’.
3. Anterior to Chrissie’s involvement, the victim, Bella, was attacked in her bedroom by an intruder wearing a balaclava. The intruder broke into the house through the kitchen window and repeatedly stabbed her with a ‘large knife’.
4. Bella did not see the attacker’s face, but perhaps by serendipity, Chrissie caught a ‘brief glimpse of the attacker’s face’ when the attacker ran out of the house, taking off his balaclava and running away in the opposite direction.
5. I was initially inclined to address the evidential issue of suspect identification, encapsulated in the Turnbull principles as Chrissie caught only a ‘brief glimpse’ of the attackers face. However, instructing solicitors have advised that presently, this is not germane.
6. This antecedent opinion was made admittedly extemporarily. I have since engaged in more prodigious and thorough research of relevant case law and statutes and will advise instructing solicitors accordingly.
7. Chrissie gave a full statement to the police and identified Alex at a ‘properly conducted identification procedure’ prima facie in conformity with section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
8. Consequently, Chrissie has since received a number of threatening telephone calls, and remains obstinate about giving evidence against Alex at trial. The most pertinent...
... middle of paper ...
...-Taylor [2006] EWCA Crim, (2006)
13) R-v-Thomas [1998] Crim LR 887, CA
14) R v Turnbull 1976, 63 Cr App R 132
15) R-v-Xhabri [2005] EWCA Crim 3135
16) Riat [2013] 1 Cr App R 2
17) Shabir (Mohammed Hanees) [2012] EWCA Crim 2564
18) Teper v R [1952] ac 480
Statutes
1) Criminal Justice Act 1967
2) Criminal Justice Act 2003
3) European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950
4) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Secondary Sources
Journals and text books
1) Adam Webster, ‘International Journal of Evidence and Proof: Horncastle v R: statements from witnesses absent at trial.’[2009]
2) Collin Tapper, Cross &Tapper on Evidence (12th Edition, Oxford University Press 2010)
3) Liz Hefernan, ‘Hearsay in Criminal Trials: the Strasbourg Perspective’ [2013]
4) Roderick Munday, Evidence (7th edition , Oxford University Press, 2013)
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
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.
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
In this case, when individuals argue about events from the past, they make use of judicial rhetoric and forensic argument assists individuals in determining who did something rather than what individuals are supposed to do (Sheard, 1996).
A. Bainham, ‘Uncertain Perpetrators and Siblings at Risk’ (2011) The Cambridge Law Journal 3 (70) pp. 508-511
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.
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
This was about the case in the Ted talk with Elizabeth Loftus where she was in interested in the case where Steve Tidis was stopped because he was in a similar car as a rape culprit, and he looked similar to the rapist.A photo line up of him, and the rapist was shown to the victim which said his looks were the closest to the rapist. After that he was taken to court where she said yes he was the rapist which was intriguing. She went from maybe to yes really quick. He was put in jail but called a local paper journalist which found the
He was presented to a witness in a lineup where no other fillers looked like the culprit. With all odds against him, the witness couldn’t help but guess which man looked like her rapist. She thought the answer to her question was in the lineup, thus chose the “closest” option. If the victim had been cautioned against guessing, informed that the offender may or may not be present in the lineup, and was presented before a lineup that contained similar fillers, Steve Titus and others, would have never been wrongfully convicted. These victims of the misidentification effect would have been declared not guilty, and would have lived their lives freely, as innocent human beings deserve to
In summation, there is no real way to dismiss the utilization of certain rules to protect and or eliminate evidence. The defendant must preserve his or her constitutional rights. The prosecution and investigators must also be accountable to these rights to ensure that the judicial system in this nation does not become a mêlée of wrongful or unfair convictions, which may be motivated by speed and necessity, rather than good experienced police and legal work. It is also important to note that many legal violations of the disclosure laws and events that would obtain the use of the exclusionary rule have ended in false convictions, giving further proof to the efficacy of the law. The rules for presenting evidence are designed to help the court and jury establish truth and administer justice (Paul B. Watson, 1986).