Casey Case

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

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

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