Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Judicial system in australia and more
Double jeopardy case study
Judicial system in australia and more
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Judicial system in australia and more
Ch 3. The Case This trial, without going into the particular details of it could be summarised as it follows: In 2014, Warriena Wright, a New Zealand tourist, connected with Tostee, a Gold Coast carpet layer, on Tinder (social media dating app). They met up in Surfer’s Paradise, bought some alcohol at a bottle shop and went his Avalon Towers apartment where they drank, took selfies and had sex. After midnight, for reasons which are still unclear, Tostee hit record on his phone and captured what would be Wright’s final hours, before she plunged to her death from his 14th floor balcony. The recording, played to the jury in Brisbane’s Supreme Court was made available on the internet (social media). In such recording, Tostee can be heard arguing with a near-incomprehensible Wright, and asking her to leave his apartment. …show more content…
Some hours after the defence application, Justice John Byrne found the comments had not jeopardised a fair trial and the jury found they found Gable Tostee not guilty of the murder or manslaughter of Warriena Wright. On the facts and arguments from the Gable Tostee trial, the test used was that of ‘factual causation’ (it has to do with whether the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or damages), as applied in the notorious case of Royall v The Queen, ( 2) See Apendix 1, just for giving some understanding to this verdict, if this report is read in the future for members of the public who are not legal professionals. Once the verdict declaring Tostee free, legally, nothing else could have been done due Queensland’s double jeopardy laws not allowing Tostee being tried again, and Attorney-General cannot appeal his acquittal, as per the secrecy of the deliberation of the jurors, although, the AG may appeal any point of law raised in the trial, which could have implications for murder cases in the
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
They found Casey Anthony, who was charged with first degree murder of her 3-year-old, not guilty. While she was not guilty of murder, she was convicted on counts four through seven for false information given to the police. The judge sentenced her to one year in county jail for each one of the four counts, but she was released 10 days after she received 1043 days credit. If I was part of the jury I would have said she was guilty of murdering her daughter. Even if she did not kill her, she is still part of the reason why she died. Casey neglected her child either way and did not report the crime to the police until someone else did. I am shocked that the visual evidence did not convince the jury that she was guilty. From the strand of hair in the trunk that matched the past child’s hair, to the extensive research on chloroform found on all web browsers, it was very evident that she did or was at least part of murdering her
...arately from the length of the delay, the prejudice towards the accused can be inferred from the length of the delay as established in R. v. Morin. Examining the Morin guidelines made the decision and since the guidelines set out an 8 to 10 month institutional delay and in this case the court deemed that the Crown was responsible for 23 months of delay. The court failed to justify the reason for the 23-month delay and since it exceeded the Morin guidelines the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and the accused’s right under Section 11(b) of the Charter has been violated and the trial within a reasonable time was infringed and negated.
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...
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
“…and on the charge that the prisoner did with others to conspire to destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States in violation of the laws and customs of war-Guilty” were the words that soared out of Wallace’s mouth at the end of the trial. It was then that Henry Wirz was found guilty. Why? Why was he found guilty? This decision was based on the emotional aspect of the witnesses, and not by the actual guilt. Not only my defense, but also the defense of Wirz’s attorney, Baker, the testimony of the defendant, Henry Wirz, shows that Wirz should not have been found guilty.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most all of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about. Finally, the argument about the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdrawal the guilty verdict and set the boy free.
He was found guilty as he remained silent throughout the trial. The jurors of Mercer County Circuit Court, did not take long to hand down the verdict.
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.
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
The judge went row by row and asked what the hardships were. It was evident that people were coming up with excuses that were not even logical to get out of this trial. I asked the bailiff if this happens all the time. He nodded and said, “ People usually do not want to sit in a serious felony cases and that is why they try to get out of it.” After hearing everybody’s excuses the judge and the attorney went back to the chambers and discussed about who should stay and who should go. It turns out people who cannot take off from work because they are the sole provider of the family, planned vacation that cannot be rescheduled or students who cannot miss classes, were taken off the case. The judge accommodated the people who were planning on missing just 1-2 days of the trial and the rest had no option, but to
In the case of R v Maloney, Lord Bridge said that it would be enough in the vast majority of cases for a judge to ask the jury to consider whether the prosecution had persuaded them that the defendant had intended a particular criminal consequence. It must be questioned whether intending to harm a person in a non-severe manner, should be the mens rea of an offence as dangerous and morally repugnant as murder.