A. Harrison’s. Harrisons firs part of his testimony that he witnessed Tom once angrily beat his sister with a flashlight is admissible. Normally under Character evidence rules you cannot bring in a defendants character to prove that he acted in conformity with a character trait. However it can be brought if he is bringing for a different reason. In this case he is bringing it to show that he had anger intent toward his wife. In order to be able to bring in character evidence in a criminal case the evidence must be pertinent to the charge that’s given. Here the charge is murder.
Character evidence is pretty pertinent in this case. The defense may argue that its different because one is an assault case and one is a murder case. However there is a problem work against the defense in this case. The fist thing is that their Murder is a violent crime. You really cant get, ore violent then murdering your ex wife. Assault is also a violent crime I don’t thing the defense will argue that hitting your ex wife is no violent.
The next problem they defense is that Harrison is testifying to he fact that he had intent. To kill his wife because he was angry with her the last time he hit her. Therefore this time it will be a lot harder for him to claim that he did not have the intent to kill her. The defense may try to argue that this can’t come in because the defendant had not yet raised self-defense. However this would be overruled because the rules allow character evidence to show intent to come in during the plaintiff’s case in chief. This can be offered for substantive evidence since it’s not for impeachment purposes. It’s not being brought up to impeach a testifying witness,
The sec...
... middle of paper ...
... agreed upon that all the knives were in the kitchen at the time.
E. Donald can testify that in his opinion Tom is a peaceful person this can voice in under opinion evidence. Since Tom has known him since childhood. Even though hey has Lived in Austin for the past year he still can testify to his opinion of him Since its his opinion that has been established Further he goes back there monthly. The prosecutor can ask him question such as if he was aware than his friend of many years had a violent temper, However she has to leave it at that.
This can come in under thrash the victim rule. Katie can testify to the fact that that Katie is a violent person. Not only that in bolsters Toms self defense claim. Since he can show that his wife was not only violent but in the past hit him as well, therefore he had reason to believe she would kill him.
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
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
...on’s blood was found at the scene of the crime. There may be ways to plant such evidence, but it would be rather difficult to draw blood from a man without him realizing it and planting it at the scene of a crime. I also would have expressed that O.J. had a motive to kill his ex-wife, as well as a history of violent outbursts towards her. With all of the evidence that the prosecution had at their disposal, they should have been able to pin the murder on O.J. beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything pointed to O.J. and showed that he was the murderer. The only thing the prosecution was not able to do was fit the bloody glove on O.J’s hand. The only issue is, the glove was made of leather and had been soaking in blood prior to being found. When leather is soaking in a liquid, it tends to shrink. If only the prosecution had realized this, the case would have been theirs.
...t this time. The fact that a long the way he was stopped by a dozen men on a bridge fully loaded with weapons and he was the only one not murdered in the car leads to suspicion. Harrison was a white man and this could be an answer to why he was not killed. If Harrison did not have anything to do with these murders then he would have been killed also due to the fact that he could have told police investigators evidence to the murder. Thirdly, if Harrison laid down $600 to get a black person out of jail, which was not accepted at this time in society, it could have led to the closing stages that Harrison would have spent money at any cost to see the African Americans dead. Although Harrison is deceased, the evidence that has been proven thus far concludes that he was the sole perpetrator and if he was still alive, he could answer questions that remain unanswered.
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
I’m sure that there are many reasons why the defendant does not take the stand and testify like not wanting to reveal all of their evidence that they may need for trial, or the defendant risks incriminating themselves by saying the wrong thing on the stand. However, in this case an African American male, age sixty-five was accused of punching his girlfriend at the time, in the stomach cases her ribs to break. However, he alleged that she was drunk and tried to fight him, which led to him pushing her really hard into a recliner chair that was in his bedroom. To be honest both of them sounded really compelling as to what happened the night in question. The victim in the case, was a very petite woman who looked fragile to touch. She looked as if she could have been in her sixties as well. The entire case was sad and he seemed remorseful for what he did to her. However, in domestic violence cases period, it is hard for me to decide which side is lying or telling the truth. If it wasn’t for Judge Deleon’s probing questions, I may really be
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
Tom has a loving heart of helping people who need help the most to helped Mayella who needed furniture to be fixed. Mayella tried many ways to be with Tom. Tom didn't realize what he has gotten himself into then he wouldn't have helped. Mayella may seem like an innocent young girl, but her father wants her to hide her story on this trial. Tom wouldn't have been able to rape a white girl who had problems, and it would be hard for him to hurt her with a bad left arm in, which would be used to bruise her left eye that would be determined by the kind of pain he would experience. This case is a usual case where it show's that white human is using racial discrimination against an innocent black person. In this world, if whites talk to blacks then they go to jail, but everyone should be able to talk to anyone no matter what race.
The defense has brought up his rough past without relating that time period with the situation we are in at the moment. The defendant does not seem to have prior outburst of any kind nor has he committed a crime that the jury was given throughout the guilt / innocence
When he is pressured into going on the stand as a witness for the trial of his neighbor’s murder, since he is not clearly investigated, he causes more harm than help. If the police investigated Edwin, they would know that he knew nothing definite about the day, location, or victim of the crime. When Edwin goes on the stand, his fickle, uncertain ideas debilitate the evidence provided, and leave the judge uninfluenced and confused. He states that, in testifying in a murder case, he does “not like to speak ill of people” (Ustinov, 375). It would not take an extensive investigation to understand that Edwin is completely incapable of serving as a viable witness in such a grim case. Following Edwin’s flurry of useless accounts, the judge states to Edwin, “…your evidence here today has been…the most misleading and the most illogical” (Ustinov, 381). If the police investigated Edwin, and did not pressure him as the “key witness”, the verdict would have been reached more
How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh, stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes in a formal tone as she delves into a pool of various example trials used to explain visual evidence, along with specific quotes obtained from well-known lawyers and workers in the industry. This simply states the recurring idea that visual evidence is important.
Hesiod’s Theogony and the Babylonian Enuma Elish are both myths that begin as creation myths, explaining how the universe and, later on, humans came to be. These types of myths exist in every culture and, while the account of creation in Hesiod’s Theogony and the Enuma Elish share many similarities, the two myths differ in many ways as well. Both myths begin creation from where the universe is a formless state, from which the primordial gods emerge. The idea of the earth and sky beginning as one and then being separated is also expressed in both myths.
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.
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the