George Thompson has been acquitted of all charges when the judge handed down the sentence on June 6,2016. These charges that Thompson is accused of include breaking and entering with the intent of theft and possession of stolen property. He has been proven not guilty and does not have to serve any prison time. During the trial, there were numerous errors. The judge mistook sustained and overruled and a defence attorney had to object again for the judge to sustain the objection. As the prosecution asked about the character of the accused, which is not admissible in the court of law. Also, after the closing arguments, both the defence and the Crown should not talk amongst each other. This was ignored, as everyone argued with each other, both …show more content…
The defence attorneys said, “ The judge made was correct in acquitting my client. There was simply not enough evidence that he did the crime and had intentions of doing it.” The Crown attorneys said, “We proved that there was enough evidence for the accused to be sentenced. The judge made a bad call and we are appealing to the Supreme Court to have a retrial.” The judge also gave a statement about the verdict, he said, “ The defence put enough doubt in the Crown's case to warrant a full acquittal. The evidence they submitted was circumstantial and didn’t prove that the accused actually committed any of the crimes he is accused of. Both the actus reus and mens rea were not proven.” We also asked the victim of the crime, Jane Allison about what she thought and she said, “If the judge did not think he did it, then we won’t try to press anymore charges against him. Until new evidence is found.” The verdict may very well impact other cases in the future. As Thompson was found not guilty of all charges, including possession of stolen property. This may set a precedent that negligence might not be a viable mens rea. As Thompson failed to check more in depth on why his co-worker would sell such high quality items to
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.
After some discussion in a lengthy verdict, the jury found the facts as I have related them above, and found further that if on these facts the defendants were guilty of the crime charged against them, then they found the defendants guilty. On the basis of this verdict, the trial judge ruled that the defendants were guilty of murdering Roger Whetmore.
have a good chance of winning the trial, because it is a case of a
...ut right because i don’t think that any other sentence would be okay. This outcome was correct because he doesn’t get to walk as a free man or even live his life how he was and he doesn’t have the chance to hurt anyone else. If you hurt your child and your wife, who that is supposed to be who you love and protect the most when you are an older man. When you choose to hurt them, your own family i believe you will hurt anyone then. I think that the defendant did receive a fair trial because there were more than 6 jurors, there were about 9, because of the ones who got kicked off, due to different reasons. I think that it was many different point of views. I believe that he received no special treatment, there was so many points and evidence against him, including the lies, and everything he lied about. I think that there was no special treatment to even go his way.
...ing of key evidence he was not found guilty. This goes to prove that although in this case Morin was ultimately found not guilty, there are other cases where the person who is actually responsible for the crime has been released for the same reasons. In this case the actual person who murdered Christine has not been found, although had the police widened their suspect list they may have found the murderer.
have a great chance of wining the case, but he tried to do the best that he could to prove
...stand why the AER did what it did for the first hour because they wanted to ensure each individual got their chance to be heard before a decision was made, which is a great practice to limit the amount of hurt feelings and disgruntled people. Due to the longevity of this hearing I was only about to attend the fist few hours of the trial and was unable to hear the final verdict. Finally I believe that this hearing, the parts I was able to view, was very fair to both parties and the board was not quick to jump to conclusion, which could cause individuals to feel unjustly treated and file for appeal.
There are those who severely criticize the conduct of the judge, but such do not understand the case. The judge is required to decide all cases of law, and the jury all cases of fact. In this event it was announced that a case of fact would be raised. Therefore a jury was empanelled. It transpired, however, that no question of fact was raided, and the jury in consequence became superfluous, except as the mere medium through which the law questions inhering in the judge were confirmed. Thus it is easily understood why the judge directed a verdict of guilty (Susan B. Anthony’s Trial-A Case of States Rights).
reached a verdict and the case was awarded to Oyston. The judge in the case had to consider
In my opinion and my understanding is that base on the evidence presented on this case Mr
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
...case is based only on this piece of evidence that has the possibility of a lab mistake, the chance of an error should be taken into account. It should also be recognized because the simple solution to wrong convictions based on one piece of possibly inaccurate evidence is to stop making convictions based only on DNA evidence. As stated by Judge Andrew Haesler, “As judges, lawyers, experts and potential jurors, we want evidence and results that make our already difficult jobs easier. We would love so expert to ease the burden of our judgement by saying, ‘This is the answer.’” (Haesler 9). However, as DNA technology stands today, it is not perfect, nor will it ever be. DNA evidence can never be a certain way to convict a suspect, it can only be used as support to convict a suspect along with other relevant evidence. DNA evidence alone does not suffice for conviction.
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...
To conclude Adnan Syed deserves a new trial because there was a founding of new evidence and insufficient evidence, both of which fit the requirements of a new trial. A new trial would help us gain a better understanding of what actually happened the day Hae was
After further research, I found that the decision by the trial judge was appealed by the convicted when they presented the following arguments: failed to consider the aboriginal perspective, erred in applying the wrong test for what constitutes colour of right or honest belief, erred in applying the wrong test for mens rea (conscious guilty state of mind), failed to apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and erred in making material errors of fact on the evidence. The appeal judge, Honourable Mr. Justice Cole, dismissed all the arguments as contradictory, opinionated and self-serving.