“Your Honor I will commence my case today by stating the facts that will ascertain Schapelle Corby’s guilt. I have five compelling reasons why Schapelle Corby should be convicted.”
“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.”
“Second. The marijuana that was found with Shapelle Corby was shaped in the same position as the body board in the bag. The defendants’ case rests on the notion that the drugs were planted in her bag by somebody else. But! For this to have happened it would have been done very quickly because the defendant had said that she had the bag with her at all times. If someone had planted the drugs in her bag it would have been rough and rushed, the weight would be uneven and the weight would be noticeable because it would sag to the side it was stuffed into. But since the 4.1 kilo grams of marijuana were practically molded to the shape of the board, it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone else had put them there.”
“Third. The defendant did not use any scientific evidence on the drugs, neither D.N.A or fingerprint evidence on the marijuana or the bag itself. To help avoiding proving her guilt.”
“Fourth. When approaching Bali airport, Shapelle required assistance to carry her bag, once customs/quarantine was reached and an officer asked her to open up her bag the defendant hesitated and refused to open up her bag, proving guilt.”
“I will now break the defendant’s main points on insuring her innocence.”
“Another of the defendant’s main arguments was how could someone that works at a fish n’ chip shop have the money to be able buy 4.1kilo grams of marijuana?
The answer is simple, she may not had to buy the drugs she be repaying a debt to someone or could be transporting the drugs from one place to another, a middle man.”
“Also Shapelle said, that if she were to carry drugs she would lock her bag, not leave it open. This could of straightforwardly been a preparation so that if she did get caught with the drugs she could say that in her defence.”
Standard of proof in Australia, the prosecutor must prove evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act. In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she still was alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence. All in all, despite the lack of concrete evidence, the prosecution team was able to provide facts that illustrated a timeline of events that could fill in the gaps of the
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...
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
In the fact pattern provided, Mark Quickdraw, a detective is conducting an investigation case whose main mission is to capture a drug dealer named Sally Martin. Detective Quickdraw relies on what he heard about the drug dealer. That leads him to believe that she will be selling cocaine in the street she lives in. In connection to his belief, that shows the reasonable suspicion he had towards the drug dealer. Followed by reasonableness, he sends an informant Sneak Pete to her residence with police money in attempt to buy cocaine. The informant comes back and hands over a small bag of cocaine he obtained from a man in the residence. He also informs the detective that he suspects the drug dealer to be having amounts of drug since he observes a white plastic bags and digital scales. Not satisfie...
FACTS OF THE CASE: Police, suspecting that the defendant, Kyllo, was growing substantial amounts of marijuana inside his unit of a triplex residence, scanned the units from outside by means of a device that measured heat signatures. This provided information on the amount of heat originating within the residence. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of Kyllo’s roof and wall had higher temperatures relative to other areas of the building, being
California v. Carney involves a Drug Enforcement Agency Agent, Robert Williams, who was observing respondent, Charles Carney, as he approached a youth in downtown San Diego. Having received previous information that that particular motor home was being used to exchange sex for marijuana, Williams accompanied by other agents kept the motor home under surveillance (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, p 260, 2002). During the time that the agent had Carney under surveillance, he saw Carney bring the youth back to his motor home, which was parked in a lot (Kamisar, et al., p 260, 2002).
"Gentlemen of the jury, be merciful. For God's sake, be merciful. He is innocent of all charges brought against him.
They gave a poor testimony and the witnesses used are untrustworthy. Saying his evidence leads towards Bob Ewell committed the crime of beating Mayella Ewell not Tom Robinson. Post
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
Roger Martz testified, for the prosecution, that the blood he tested contained no significant amounts of EDTA. He said the blood found at the crime scene didn't come from a test tube with special preservatives used at a crime lab. Defence lawyer Robert Blazier filed papers stating that Roger Martz has a habit and custom of changing F.B.I. reports, removing helpful defense information and has falsely testified in a number of cases.
Fonda was able to provide evidence, maybe not hard evidence, but reasonable evidence that things may not have happened the way they were testified in court. For example, the old man who lived below the boy and his father claimed to have heard the fal...