Law of Evidence: R v Kearley Essentially this piece concerns whether the House of Lords correctly decided the case of R v Kearley[1]. The majority decided allowing the appeal, that the evidence concerned in this case was either irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible (unless part of the res gestae) or was inadmissible as hearsay in the form of an implied assertion. The facts of Kearley will be discussed, followed by an analysis of the decision by their Lordships, finally considering the issues
Sandra Wallace Unit 1 Individual Project CJUS 440-1704B-01 Professor Hudson The Laws of Evidence Title: Brady v. Maryland Facts: Both Charles Boblit and John Brady were found guilty of first-degree murder and in turns sentenced to the death penalty in the sentencing phase in the state court of Anne Arundel County. Brady volunteered that he was involved in the robbery but did not involve himself in the homicide, he stated Boblit did act of killing. But since the prosecution kept the admittance
1 Res Gestae, Topic 3, law of evidence. Prepare by ikram Abdul Sattar 2. Res Gestae is an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. Res gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an event, thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Res gestae is a Latin phrase means "the thing done". 2 Res Gestae, Topic 3, law of evidence. Prepare by ikram Abdul
proof is lower with a preponderance of evidence. In a preponderance of evidence, the proof must basically be more likely than not. In criminal matters, there is a higher proof needed, and it is beyond a reasonable doubt. For a
with extensive knowledge or experience in a unique discipline or professional field beyond that of the average lay person. In a case, if technical, scientific, or other specialized knowledge is determined to be necessary to help to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, an expert witness may be called upon. Expert witnesses often play an important role in civil litigation by using their experience and knowledge to reach just conclusions. Experts are often brought in for particular
conclude a reasoning without obtaining all the facts. There are five classifications of death as well as elements of a crime. In a death instigation, the evidence that the environment and the body contains helps the investigators come to a reasonable conclusion and the death of an individual. A death investigation may be seemed simple without enough evidence the case goes cold. There are different types of death investigations that require a different type of procedure. In a death, the investigation
forensic evidence is presented in a trial, it must be deemed admissible (Imwinkelried, 1998). The admissibility of evidence is determined by its reliability, its relevance and its legitimacy. The evidence must be screened against the trial court’s Rules of Evidence. The trial court is the deciding factor on the admissibility or inadmissibility of any forensic evidence. The Rules of Evidence are utilized by the courts to determine if either side (Defense or Prosecution), have presented any evidence that
their practice. Creating several labs in on jurisdiction would remedy the monopoly and create competition; the competition between the different labs may create quality in the terms that each lab will want to produce the best work possible. Sending evidence to various labs could also control the quality of results divergent among the different forensic scientist would be investigated to see where the discrepancy may be. The creation of a nationalized forensic institute, that purpose is to validate and
Hae and Adnan tasked him with burying her. The state later used Jay’s testimony as the foundation for their case, even though it contradicted some of the state’s own physical evidence. While Jay’s eyewitness testimony does identify Adnan Syed as Hae Lee’s murderer, it is self-serving and inconsistent, with no physical evidence to corroborate it. Therefore,
admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008
Memo: The initial decisions of our group on the Nolan Ryan baseball card case were split evenly on whether or not the care should be returned. There were 2 members (Amy Plastow and Darrin Neil) who believed Brian Wezesinski should return the card to Joe Irmen, while 3 members (Alyshya Cubean, Kelly Brudvik, and Madeline Wade) felt Brian should make the decision to keep the card. The final person in our group was on the fence thinking that morally Brian should give the card back but that legally Brian
Hugo Münsterberg became the first psychologist to use his education, training, and tools to step into the judicial realm of the courtroom. As we learned in our reading, Münsterberg had written many articles regarding how psychology could be used to assist with legal issues (Hothersall, 2004). In his book On the Witness Stand, Münsterberg detailed how eyewitness reports were often invalid due to what he called “subjective and objective truth” (Hothersall, 2004). According to Münsterberg, when one
Evidence is a necessary key component to reach a verdict in legal cases. The two major categories of evidence include physical and testimonial evidence. Physical evidence is considered as a tangible object that is able to be associated with the victim or criminal (Mason et al., 2005). Mason et al. (2005) refers to testimonial evidence as an allegation, either written or spoken, provided by the witness or victim. Compared with testimonial evidence, Mason et al. (2005) regards physical evidence as
We the jury find the defendant, Not Guilty! Today is the last day of the trial. We have heard all of the witnesses and now we know that we must deliberate. I know that some of the “witnesses” are liars. Some make valid points and I know without a doubt in my mind that Captain Preston is an innocent man and that his men were provoked. As I listened to the witnesses, here is what I came to believe: The witnesses for the prosecution have very different stories as do some of the witnesses for the defense
nausea drug marketed by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012). Merrell Dow contended that Bendectin did not cause birth defects in humans and that the petitioners would be unable to come forward with any evidence to prove otherwise. To support this claim, Merrell Dow submitted an affidavit from Steven H. Lamm. Steven H. Lamm was a physician and an epidemiologist. He was well credentialed expert on the risks from exposure to various chemical substances. Doctor
properly examine, photograph, document and evaluate evidence. The chain of custody must be maintained in all investigations. Documentation of the crime scene especially with the use of a camera, visually preserves the evidence so that it can be presented during trials even years after the crime was committed. During our investigation of trace evidence, I found the research that I did on Ted Bundy fascinating. I realized that just with soil evidence, they were able to locate the body of one of his
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
time went on because of commitment bias. Commitment bias causes the victim to become more convinced that someone is the actual perpetrator because of an eagerness to please the police and because of the assumption that the police has substantial evidence against the suspect; thus, every time the victim is shown the suspect, they begin to
Memory is an important part of our lives. It fills us with comfort, warmth, and happiness when recalling a joyous event; it may also illicit feelings of anger, sadness, or discontent. Unfortunately, our memory is not as perfect as we may think. In fact, our memory is extremely malleable. Most people think memory acts as a tape recorder; you experience an event, and like a video tape, you can replay the event over and over in exact detail as it happened. This belief could not be further from
In this paper I have tried to trace down the important improvements made in law regarding dying declaration. Dying declaration is defined in section 32 of the Indian evidence act. Section 32 provides an exception to the principle of excluding hearsay evidence. The principle behind is that a person who has the first hand knowledge of the facts of the case but who because of death, disability etc., is not able to appear in the court, then some other person should transmit this knowledge given by the