Review Of The Poem 'Little Things' By Richard Smiley: The Best Bakery

Within the courtroom, it was said that “when asked to suppress a confession, he ruled that every one was voluntary.” Socially this judge knowing fully realizes that police will use ways of torture and coercion to get information from some of the defendants which is against the law. But Judge Locallo still does not dismiss this information as inadmissible, and protect the constitutional rights of these defendants. Article three of the human rights act protects us from “torture (mental or physical). This a violation not only of the law but of the human rights of some of these defendants. There would not be nearly as many confessions if these police officers did not have the defendants in the police station being screamed at and interrogated all hours of the night until they mentally crack. That is actually an example of mental torture for these people. This once again shows how socially this courtroom is run and appears to be a business. They just want cases to come in and out as fast as possible, which I believe is unjust. So with this socially the judge knows that illegal activity went on to obtain a lot of these confessions, and he acknowledged that. But he still goes on with the case and says that they are admissible. This is the social and legal working together because socially the judge accepts that this is the norm in police getting information, instead of enforcing the law and protecting the human rights of the defendants on trial, who should not have that confession used admissibly in court as evidence against

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]

Griggs, the defendant, then decided to appeal to the courts, claiming they erred by rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, determining the child witnesses were competent to testify , admitting hearsay testimony from various witnesses, denying his request for a continuance, and admitting evidence under W.R.E. 404(b). The Supreme Court responded by affirming, holding “(1) the district court did not err by (i) rejecting Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (ii) determining that the child witnesses were competent to testify, (iii) denying Defendant’s requests for continuances, and (iv) admitting other bad acts evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the district court erred in allowing the admission of some hearsay testimony at trial, but the errors were harmless; and (3) Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not

Overall, Dr. Fraser’s argument is organized, well structured, and concise, using all three tools of appeal, logos, pathos, and ethos persuading his audience that eyewitness testimony can be seen as invalid. He expresses his argument though story telling, playing a huge role on the logical reasoning, or logos, as well as reasoning abilities. His argument was very effective in getting the audience engaged immediately, using descriptions and visual aids to make it easily understandable to those who are well knowledgeable about the criminal trial process. Dr. Fraser presented his argument in a way that the audience could follow and feel personally involved in. As he states the facts as he became aware of them in the criminal case, Dr. Fraser is in turn, building up to the conclusion of the argument; that eye witness testimony is, at best,

The second part of the paper will review the arguments of crown and counsel while comparing them towards the judge’s decision. Counsel argued the accused the accused use of

For rest of time he was answering all the questions raised to the point. The lady had a meeting with the prosecutor before the trail began, she was asked for the negotiation on the amount of fine which signified that she knew she was guilty and that a hefty amount of fine will be imposed on her. However, she also came prepared with some bit of research done and being accompanied by a friend who had the experience of court procedures beforehand. On the contrary, he was not allowed actively to take part in the court proceedings for the trial, but he suggested some valid points as i.e. raising concerns over the integrity of radar instrument and its calibration of it. There was no objections made by the attorney as the lady had no experience of court procedures. This was evident that this was her first time which could be seen by her body language and the way she was asking the questions. This was an open and shut case where a radar instrument played a vital role of evidence in recording the speed of the car. There could have been some bit of relaxation if the lady would have negotiated to the officer as the Judge narrated that the time of negotiation had long past gone and court cannot be

Issue 1: The denial of legal counsel during the original collection of blood, fingerprints, clothing etc., did not violate the accuser’s rights with the lineup, as counsel’s absence did not cause the defendants ability to have a fair trial.

Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act are related to admissions and confessions. Sections 17 to 31 refers about admissions/confessions, and also, the admissibility and inadmissibility of admissions/confessions. An analysis of the above mentioned provisions reveals that an admission or a confession to be relevant must be related to a "fact in issue" or a "relevant fact". In that sense, Section 5 (and consequently Sections 6 to 16) of the Evidence Act are unavoidably interlaced with admissible admissions/confessions. It is, therefore, necessary to record here, that admissibility of admissions/confessions would be dependent on whether they would fall in the sphere of "facts in issue" or "relevant facts". That in turn is to be determined with reference

“had a due process right to present and have considered by the jury all relevant evidence to rebut

“It’s a general problem not specific to the law of the United Kingdom a criminal justice system characterized by an emphasis on crime control rather than due process will inevitably produce miscarriage of justice.”

In a democratic system like India, the role played by the judiciary is of paramount prominence. The judiciary, through its immaculate reasoning ability helps to keep a democracy proficiently running, and this is perhaps one of the causes why the Independence of the judiciary is the cornerstone of India’s democracy. Transparency and accountability- these are two fundamental words which help in instituting a system of good governance in any country. Statistics and studies have shown that where there exists a veil of secrecy, there exists corruption. And as depressing as it is, the one body which adjudicates on corruption and lays down guidelines to prevent such corrupt activities has been affected by corruption itself. The reason why the collegium system was criticized and the government wanted to remove it was this very reason; it was injected and filled with corruption. The collegium system had no room for transparency, thus it eventually led to activities of corruption and nepotism taking place. Such acts of corruption, nepotism etc. would in the long run affect the judiciary and the stability of the government. The NJAC Act was introduced in the light of these events to overcome these issues and to provide a more dependable and stable mechanism to the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. After the National Judicial Commission Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 11, 2014 by the Hon’ble Law minister Mr. Ravi

As Indian justice system goes hand in hand with facts, arguments, moral values, laws, documents, and investigations process, it consumes

Any institution, be it legislature, executive, judiciary or bureaucracy, is liable to be abused if it exceeds its legitimate jurisdiction and functions. But sometimes these ultra vires activities are blessing in disguise as is the case of judicial activism. Media trial is also an appreciable effort along with the innovative sting operations as it keeps a close watch over the investigations and activities of police administration and executive. But there must be a reasonable self-restriction over its arena and due emphasis should be given to the fair trial and court procedures must be respected with adequate sense of responsibility. Media should acknowledge the fact that whatever they publish has a great impact over the spectator. Therefore, it is the moral duty of media to show the truth and that too at the right time.

The Supreme Court has now rendered a landmark decision on Art.356(1) in S.R. Bommai v. India. The case arose in the context of the following facts.