QUESTION PRESENTED At trial, the pathologist that performed the autopsy and the creator of histological slides did not testify. But Dr. Dyer gave testimony, after having seen the report. The question before the court is whether the Confrontation Clause was violated by the testimony of Dr. Dyer, the pathologist who did not conduct the autopsy or create the histologic slides? Furthermore, if the Confrontation Clause was violated is it harmful to the Defendant? BRIEF ANSWER The bulk of Dr. Dyer’s testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant was able to cross-examine the witness as to his independent opinions. These opinions were based on evidence that was admitted into evidence and not on the report, which was not entered into evidence. However, Dyer’s testimony on the stomach contents is a violation of the Confrontation Clause because it was based on the report and not his independent opinion. Even if this was determined to be a violation of the Confrontation Clause, this should be considered …show more content…
Williams v. State, 116 S.W.3d 788, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The testimony on stomach contents introduced new information and was not an independent opinion. This testimony is based on information, contained in the autopsy report. And unlike the autopsy photos, the report was not admitted into evidence. When he answered questions about stomach content, Dr. Dyer is simply parroting the information contained in Dr. Podduturi’s autopsy report. These statements are testimonial hearsay, which means the defendant has a right to cross-examine the witness that originally produced the evidence. Because the Defendant never had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Podduturi, this is a Confrontation Clause violation. Without the opportunity to confront the performer of the autopsy, the admission of the stomach content testimony violates the Confrontation
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
(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?
One anthropologist stated that the evidence supported the theory that the skeletal remains belonged to potential victim #1. Therefore, the prosecution argued that the skeletal remains were that of Robert Rutherford, who went missing four years ago. It is known that the victim and the defendant had some misunderstandings about the hunting area and fought to hunt certain places in the area. On the other hand, another anthropologist stated the opposite and the defense argued that the skeletal remains did not belong to Robert Rutherford, but instead were that of Stephen Morton, who hunted in the area and went missing two years prior to Robert Rutherford. Stephen Morton had no known connections to the defendant, therefore concluding him innocent in the defense’s mind. There are some various similarities found in the case that could point in either the defense or prosecution, therefore the case needs to be revaluated for a third opinion.
In 2002, the Court decided Atkins and opened the door for defendants to challenge their sentence using Atkins claims. Hall filed such a motion in 2004, but the evidentiary hearing to reexamine the mental retard...
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
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
Throughout the years, this clause has been very controversial. In the 2004 case, Crawford vs. Washington; Michael Crawford and his wife, Sylvia Crawford had approached a man by the name of Kenneth Lee. There had been alleged allegations that Lee had tried to rape Mrs. Crawford. In the midst of the confrontation, Michael Crawford stabbed Lee in his torso. Michael then claimed he only did it acting in self-defense because he thought Lee had just picked up a weapon and was going to attack him first. In the trial for this case, Mrs. Crawford declined to testify against her husband, and was not required to do so under spousal privilege. However, her testimonial statement was later used against her husband because the facts of her statement and the facts in his statements were a little different. Noticeably, whether Lee was armed and made an advance prior to his stabbing came into question. Mr. Crawford was charged with assault and attempted murder. He was found guilty. The court found Crawford guilty based on his wife’s recorded statements, describing the stabbing that took place that the prosecutors played in court. The statement contradicted Michael’s defense that he stabbed Lee in self-defense of his wife. After this incident, the Confrontation Clause was put into effect. It serves two purposes. First, it protects the defendant from statements made outside of a court being used against a person when they have no opportunity to test or challenge the alleged statement, and second the Confrontation Clause gives a defendant the oppor...
In the United States criminal justice system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With this concept in mind, the accused are given many rights to a fair trial. One of those rights falls under the sixth amendment in the United States Constitution. The confrontation clause reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines the confrontation clause as, “A fundamental right of a defendant in a criminal action to come face-to-face with an adverse witness in the court’s presence so the defendant has a fair chance to object the testimony of the witness, and the opportunity to cross-examine him or her” (Lehman & Shirelle, 2005, p. 85) The confrontation clause is essential to due process and pertains to the federal and state court. In some circumstances the accused is not being given the right to confront witness testimony face-to-face because the justice system grants exceptions to this constitutional right.
For example, according to a CNN article entitled,” 'Blue-eyed butcher ' sentenced to 20 years,” “A medical examiner testified he was able to count 193 wounds on the body, with the actual number of stab wounds well in excess of that” (Jakobsson, 2010, para. 6). Pictures were also presented to the jury to show the disfigured body. Another piece of evidence leading to the conviction of Susan Wright was the autopsy done that showed drugs in Wright’s system. The author of CNN stated, “They also suggested she may have drugged him with gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as the "date-rape drug," low levels of which were found in Jeffrey Wright 's system” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 10). One last conclusive piece of visual evidence was the presence of two of Jeffrey’s ex-girlfriends. “Misty McMichael testified Wright beat her repeatedly during their two-year relationship and tried to control her every move” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 13). McMichael also claimed that Wright had pushed her down the stairs 104 times and at one point even locked her in a room (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 14). This evidence was in favor of Susan Wright. The impact of this visual evidence was significant in many ways. Evidence is proof and proof cannot be made up, only misinterpreted. Therefore, the excessive amount of stab wounds found on Wright’s body along with the drugs found in his system was
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
In “A Brief Encounter with the Enemy” by Said Sayrafiezadeh, Luke, a pessimistic soldier, walks down memory lane as he travels the path to get to the hill during his last recon. He remembers appreciating nature, encountering and writing to Becky, the first time he’d shot a gun, and Christmas leave. Luke identifies the moment when he realizes that he had joined the army for the wrong reason, after crossing the bridge his team built in order to cross the valley, and at the same time dreading the return to his former office job. Boredom and nothingness destroy him mentally as he waits for enemies to appear. When the enemies finally appear, he shoots them down and goes home the next day. Sayrafiezadeh proposes that expectations don’t always equate
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Held: Evidence would have been admissible as part of the res gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary events. 9 Res Gestae, Topic 3, Law of Evidence. Prepared by Ikram Abdul Sattar, 10. R v. Andrews [1987] 1 All ER 513 where the appellant and another man knocked on the door of the victim’s flat and when the victim opened it, the appellant stabbed him in the chest and stomach with a knife and the two men then robbed the flat.
... this sense is not admissible, and therefore his testimony is objectifiable in this sense did not comply with the federal rule of evidence 704.
Companies have transformed technology from a supporting tool into a strategic weapon.”(Davenport, 2006) In business research, technology has become an essential means that many organizations use in their daily operations. According to the article, Analytics is a major technological tool used. It is described as “the extensive use of data, statistical and quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive models, and fact-based management to drive decisions and actions."(Davenport, 2006) Data is compiled to enhance business practices. When samples are taken, they are used to examine research and understand how to solve problems or why situations are as they are. Furthermore, in this article, Thomas Davenport discusses analytics from a business standpoint. He refers to organizations that have been successful in their usage of data and statistical analysis. In addition, he also discusses how data and statistics can be vital in the efforts to improve the operations of businesses.