Res gestae
1. 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 Sattar 3. For declarations to be admitted as part of res gestae, the following conditions must be met: 1. The words must explain "or qualify". 2. The statement must have been made contemporaneously (simultaneous, concurrent, happening during the same period of time) with the act, i.e., made either during, or immediately before or after its occurrence, but not at such interval (gap) as to allow of fabrication, or to reduce them to mere narrative (story or tale) of a past event. 3 Res Gestae, Topic 3, law of evidence. Prepare by ikram Abdul Sattar 4. The basis for the admissibility of the evidence as part of res gestae is its close connection to the facts in issue as to form part of the transaction out of which the facts in issue arose. 4 Res
The appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife by shooting her with a shotgun. His defence was that the gun had discharged accidentally while he was cleaning it. To rebut that defence, the prosecutor called for the evidence of a telephone operator, who stated that shortly before the time of the shooting, she had received a call from the address where the deceased lived with her husband. The witness said that the call was from a female, who in a sobbing voice and hysterical state said, “Get me the police, please!” and gave the address, but before she could make the connection to the police station, the caller hung up. 8 Res Gestae, Topic 3, law of evidence. Prepare by ikram Abdul
This case was categorized under the criminal law, as the defendant had to go against the Crown. As for the actual case, the incident first came to attention when a 911 call was made from Godoy’s apartment, which was suddenly cut short before the caller was able to be identified. Despite this, a total of four officers headed to the apartment to confirm any suspicions and to question the resident of the apartment, which was found to be Godoy. As the officers arrived and requested access to Godoy’s apartment, a feminine cry was heard inside. It was this time that Godoy was attempting to close the door on the officers to avoid investigation, but as the officers’ suspicious grew stronger, they forced themselves into the apartment, despite Godoy’s
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
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
``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.
This concept now embedded in the Federal Rules of Evidence can trace its philosophical underpinnings in prerevolutionary England. Before the 17th century, English courts had very few limitations on what evidence could be admitted into court.3 This court system, which was created in the wake of Norman invasion in 1066, did not ...
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...
...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.
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 the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ...
In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if: any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible, any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible, all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be
Evidence is the key element in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of the crimes against society in a criminal court of law. But in order to understand magnitude and necessity of evidence as a it relates to the criminal justice system one must know what are the five (5) key issues and or points regarding evidence. The first is what truly is evidence is it written documentation, is it expert testimony, is it hearsay (oral uncorroborated statements) in a matter of fact way it can be all just mentioned, none just mentioned, or some just mentioned and others as well. After understanding what "truly" constitutes evidence one must realize how and were evidence can be gathered to have the correct overall view of what is and is not evidence. Third all things that may be evidence may be unusable either in defense or prosecution of the defendant. So it becomes essential to understand the ground rules set forth both on the Federal and State level with regards to what evidence is actually permissible in a court of law. Next, we need to analyze to major issues that have become prevalent in our time regarding evidence in the adversary system and the effect recent rulings have had in dictating what is evidence and more importantly evidence permissible in a court of law. Finally, what effect does the process of obtaining, collecting, and using evidence mean for our adversary model used in the criminal justice system?
Before 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 may be irrelevant to the case at hand (Imwinkelried, 1998). This means the evidence presented must be absent of prejudice and hearsay.
Necessity (of the evidence available under the circumstances): the victim being generally the only eye witness t...
H. P. Grice, in his theory of conversational implicature, demonstrated the heavy reliance of linguistic communication on contextual cues (Grice, 1975). In “Logic and Conversation” (1975), he states, “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” This Cooperative Principle (CP) asserts that participants in a conversation will tailor their contributions to the conversation to further its purpose. Most conversations do follow the cooperative principle in that the speaker wants to convey her intention and the listener wants to understand the speaker’s intention. Situations in which the cooperative principle is not in place are more unusual or contrived. The legal system in the United States can create situations in which participants of a conversation are not operating under the CP. While the court’s purpose is ostensibly to discover truth and serve justice, the prosecution and defense are clearly at odds in the purpose of their utterances. In this essay, I will explore ways in which lawyers, witnesses, law enforcement officials and suspects exploit the tension between the artificial environment of the courtroom with its strictly defined rules and the expected norms of conversation for their own ends.