Legal Case Analysis
1. In this matter I am asked to advise those instructing me as to whether the prosecution can adduce evidence of a written statement of a witness unwilling to testify at trial and secondly how her evidence might be presented if she decides to give evidence at trial.
2. I understand that Chrissie lives within close proximity to the scene of the crime and is in fact a ‘next door neighbour’.
3. Anterior to Chrissie’s involvement, the victim, Bella, was attacked in her bedroom by an intruder wearing a balaclava. The intruder broke into the house through the kitchen window and repeatedly stabbed her with a ‘large knife’.
4. Bella did not see the attacker’s face, but perhaps by serendipity, Chrissie caught a ‘brief glimpse of the attacker’s face’ when the attacker ran out of the house, taking off his balaclava and running away in the opposite direction.
5. I was initially inclined to address the evidential issue of suspect identification, encapsulated in the Turnbull principles as Chrissie caught only a ‘brief glimpse’ of the attackers face. However, instructing solicitors have advised that presently, this is not germane.
6. This antecedent opinion was made admittedly extemporarily. I have since engaged in more prodigious and thorough research of relevant case law and statutes and will advise instructing solicitors accordingly.
7. Chrissie gave a full statement to the police and identified Alex at a ‘properly conducted identification procedure’ prima facie in conformity with section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
8. Consequently, Chrissie has since received a number of threatening telephone calls, and remains obstinate about giving evidence against Alex at trial. The most pertinent...
... middle of paper ...
...-Taylor [2006] EWCA Crim, (2006)
13) R-v-Thomas [1998] Crim LR 887, CA
14) R v Turnbull 1976, 63 Cr App R 132
15) R-v-Xhabri [2005] EWCA Crim 3135
16) Riat [2013] 1 Cr App R 2
17) Shabir (Mohammed Hanees) [2012] EWCA Crim 2564
18) Teper v R [1952] ac 480
Statutes
1) Criminal Justice Act 1967
2) Criminal Justice Act 2003
3) European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950
4) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Secondary Sources
Journals and text books
1) Adam Webster, ‘International Journal of Evidence and Proof: Horncastle v R: statements from witnesses absent at trial.’[2009]
2) Collin Tapper, Cross &Tapper on Evidence (12th Edition, Oxford University Press 2010)
3) Liz Hefernan, ‘Hearsay in Criminal Trials: the Strasbourg Perspective’ [2013]
4) Roderick Munday, Evidence (7th edition , Oxford University Press, 2013)
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
Expert opinion that is not objected to or contradicted should inform the finding of a judge. [Ibid 32] (Meagher JA)
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...
...idence in the conviction of Melanie McGuire. According to Champod (2004), Beth Dunton may have skipped important steps necessary to collecting fingerprints from the trash bags. If fingerprints had been collected from the trash bags, this could have cleared Melanie or added to the mountain of evidence against her. According to Rossmo (2009), all of the circumstantial evidence gathered by investigators could have been declared coincidental. There was no “smoking gun” to convict Melanie. Despite possible errors, the investigative team was successful in remaining free of bias being that the evidence collected by two different investigative teams led to Melanie McGuire as the suspect and ultimately to her conviction. Human error is inevitable while conducting investigation, but ultimately a jury of peers found Melanie McGuire guilty of the alleged crimes (Glatt, 2008).
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
``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.
Whitley, Kyles was tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon review of his case, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to give evidence about a witness, a man named “Beanie”, and several other pieces of material evidence. Since these were not given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t released, the conviction was overturned. This is relevant to the dilemma because one of the areas that had importance to the defense was that the witness wasn’t consistent in their testimony and that led to issues with their effectiveness as a witness. Referring back to the dilemma and the officer’s conduct, the officer wasn’t consistent in their testimony, namely that they denied wrongdoing and later confessed. This shows that the officer is an inconsistent witness and that if this is discovered, and the prosecution must disclose that information, he can be impeached as a witness. This will mean that he is not as effective in the criminal justice
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
Half way through the book the murder is solved, the culprit owns up and confesses. “And he said, ‘I killed Wellington, Christopher.’” chapter one-hundred and sixty-seven, page one-hundred and fifty. The murder is solved just over half way through the book, the book is a total of two-hundred and sixty-eight pages long, and continues on to talk about Chris’ life and adventure beyond the murder. During the novel, Chris finds a new discovery, his mother, who died two years ago, is still alive. Chris finds letters from his mother which state she is alive and well and in fact did not pass away, she ran off with a new lover. “And I said, ‘i thought she was dead, but she was still alive. And Father lied to me. And also he said he killed Wellington.’” chapter one-hundred and ninety-seven, page one-hundred and sixty-six. In summary, the family mystery was not mentioned in the beginning of the novel although was still the main asset of the novel, inducing the murder to become a Red
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
The plot of “Witness for the Prosecution” takes the viewer on a rollercoaster ride as the mystery of Emily French’s, a wealthy widow, murder unfolds in the courtroom. Leonard Vole visits the office of Sir Wilfrid for legal advice because he suspects that he will be arrested and charged with Mrs. French’s murder. Consequently, Vole’s suspicion came to fruition when he was arrested minutes are voicing his concerns. Sir Wilfrid accepted Vole’s case after he consults with a fellow barrister (attorney). Christine Helm, Vole’s wife and a former actress, graces Sir Wilfrid’s office with her presence to corroborate Vole’s story confirming his alibi. During the trial, Christine is not called as a witness for the defense; however, she is called as a witness for the prosecution. The mysterious death of Emily French resulted ...
The Frontline documentary, The Confessions (2010), tells the story of the Norfolk Four; four innocent men who were ultimately convicted of the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko. As horrendous and appalling as Michelle Bosko’s murder was, that was not the most shocking point of the film. More astonishing is the fact that four innocent men were convicted of the crime with the help false confessions obtained by the police investigating the case. This despite the fact that police and prosecutors had physical evidence and testimony from the real murderer that pointed to the innocence of the Norfolk four.
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
It’s 10:30am and Janice, Alex’s mother, receives a phone call. “Hi Janice, this is Mrs. Smith calling with regards to Alex. Yes, he isn’t having a good day. He has been very disruptive this morning. We tried calling down Alex’s older sister to calm him down, and to talk to him, but he wouldn’t calm down. Would you please come and get him?”
In summation, there is no real way to dismiss the utilization of certain rules to protect and or eliminate evidence. The defendant must preserve his or her constitutional rights. The prosecution and investigators must also be accountable to these rights to ensure that the judicial system in this nation does not become a mêlée of wrongful or unfair convictions, which may be motivated by speed and necessity, rather than good experienced police and legal work. It is also important to note that many legal violations of the disclosure laws and events that would obtain the use of the exclusionary rule have ended in false convictions, giving further proof to the efficacy of the law. The rules for presenting evidence are designed to help the court and jury establish truth and administer justice (Paul B. Watson, 1986).