The opening scene is a re-enactment of R v Liam Cooley. Cooley is the suspect in an armed robbery. He pleads ignorance but investigators have found the accused’s fingerprints on a pair of sunglasses in the getaway car. The prosecution’s witness is a member of the NSW Forensics Squad. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor strategically confirmed the forensics officer’s extensive expertise and the scientific validity of the methodology used. This is permissible under s 29(1) which allows parties to proceed in any manner they see fit. Here the prosecutor used the credibility gap to his advantage, as the police officer’s technical statements, “rich in detail”, were seen as legitimate.
Since the second wave of feminism in the 1960’s women have demanded for equality rights. The R V. Ewanchuck case created many disagreement’s with feminists on the topic of rape myths. It has not only been seen as a precedent for the criminal law but as well an eye opener for the society to create awareness for this act. Since society continues to support most rape myths, it overlooks the act itself and puts the blame and responsibility on the victim as opposed to the perpetrator. This has created a rape culture within society. The term rape culture was created to demonstrate the ways in which victims were blamed for sexual assault, and how male sexual violence was normalized. Feminists are exploring the world of rape myths in Canadian law
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Mr. Cockburn concluded that the evidence presented in this case was misinterpret and misapprehend, the leading investigation was “unscientific and slipshod” which lead to the sentence of Edward splatt. Many questions were raised, whether police officers should collect trace elements from the crime scene? The involvemet of police officers collecting samples rather than scientific experts which could lead to wrong and misleading evidence? The scientific procedure undertaking in this investigation. And these collected samples collected from officers and tested would lead to unvaluable piece of evidence.After Edward splatt conviction, anattorney- general by the name of Mr Griffin keeped a close eye on the case and examined the moran report and
Barry Winston made a remarkable statement during his appointment with the young man in paragraph 3 on page 111, which states “of course I believe him, but I’m worried about finding a judge who’ll believe him”. However, in my opinion, I wouldn’t have thought him to be vindicated. Moreover, all evidence proved that he was indeed guilty even if he doesn’t remember the incident, the young man had 3 beers
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
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
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
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...