Collateral Attacks

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.

In this article “How Safer Streets Can Thwart Terrorists” written by Yonah Freemark, educates us about multiple terrorist attacks that have occurred specifically in the New York area and how the state is working to develop a safer approach. In May of 2017 at Times Square a motorist drove through a large crowd killing one person and injuring many others. Had it not been for a three foot guarding rail, the motorist could have killed many more. Another attack like this happened previously where an average of sixteen pedestrians were killed and since then have doubled. New York is not only the victim of these kind of attacks; famous places like France, Netherlands, and London constantly have attacks like these happen.

Competency has two split meanings in it uses relating to evidence and witness themselves. In regards to evidence, competence refers to admissibility and specifically not hearsay. In regards to witness, the term refers to legal capability of an individual to give reliable facts for use in court of law. The general rule under rule 601 of the federal rule evidence provides that "every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules". This rule governs and directs in decision making on a witness ability to provide evidence in a trial. It through assessments of competence that it is determined if a court can hear evidence from a particular witness (Nemeth, 2011).

During the cross-examination, sometime I cannnot understand the purpose of the questions raised by the defence side. I do have many queries in my mind and I thought that the accused may not be guilty at one particular moment. But when I kept listening to the cross-examination, I started to understand that the barrister from defence tring to increasing the queries of the judges and juries so as to make the accused acquitted. It is the different of two sides – whether eliminating or increasing the doubts towards the offense.

Floundering through stacks of beige manila folders, I gathered yellow papers containing facts and statistics. With anxiety and nervousness as my adversaries, I articulately spoke point after point against the other team’s arguments. Echoing off of the walls of the room, I declared “next,” “case,” “off case,” and “DA” after reading my evidence. Within a team, I was debating public policy with another team of people in hopes of persuading the ever-so-quiet judge to rule in favor of my plan over the other team. As the clock ticked for the eighth time, I ended my lengthy speech and announced, “ready for cross examination.” The opponents stood up and attempted to find holes in my logic through extensive inquisition. Yet, I did not relent; with

The work of loftus and palmer showed how easy it is to alter someone’s answer by simply changing the question given to them. The CJS are taking steps to take more notice of the problems identified in this essay. Eyewitness testimony is a crucial part of prosecution even in the modern day and can be the tipping point whether the guilty defendant gets sentenced or

France had been the first country to use high-speed technology, after it built the high-speed rail in order to have people reach destinations quicker than usual. Later having the Bullet Train built, people are able to travel from London to Paris in two and a half hours. Paris has been under the threat of terrorism for over a year, and technology has become useful to reduce terror attacks, as well as using bomb detectors to prevent the

There had been much controversy after the 9/11 attacks. People knew we were attacked but clueless to all the details. I’m at odds with the whole 9/11 attack. Financial intelligence efforts have had little externally discernible impact on reducing levels of terrorism or on criminal convictions (Levi, 2010). I have many unanswered questions throughout my research. The following information is what I found for this topic of countering finances of terrorism.

A precipitating stressor event that probably triggered the onset of Janet's schizophrenic episode is her first time being away from home. If she was a shy and socially awkward girl, this major transition from home to a dorm setting could have a heavy impact on her mental state. Other things that may have contributed could also be that she would have constant arguments with her mother. At that younger age, it did not seem as if her condition would comeback or get worse in the future. The arguments would sometimes lead to Janet inflicting self harm (Clinical Discussion ). In addition, Janet felt uncomfortable if someone would look at her while she's eating. Another factor that may have triggered this behavior could have been her roommates and the new environment. She was not used to that environment, therefore she was uncomfortable and did not feel safe. . She was then left to be controlled by her long encased schizophrenia. Several factors showed symptoms of Janet becoming schizophrenic.

The competence of the defendant is at the root of this relationship. The level of competency required in various steps in the legal system is very low. No one is required to have an extensive knowledge of the legal system. According to

Thus, when any member from the team establishes credibility including the expert witness or the eyewitness, the witness holds an advantage for his team, even throughout cross-examination. Furthermore, an expert witness or an eyewitness may continue to impress jurors during cross, unless the cross-examiner is well-prepared and brings the opposing eye or expert witness to his team through agreement of his arguments. Therefore, lawyers must be careful while cross-examining (Kebbell). Lawyers must ask questions that will aid their team and avoid questions that will harm their team. What types of questions should a lawyer ask to aid their team and harm the opposing team?

I was not convinced the witness was certain, but it became a fact that the word “triads” was used. This draws attention to the ability of lawyers to make simple facts complex. The witness’s initial response, “something to that effect”, may have been his genuine recollection. However, the specificity of the prosecutor’s question pressured the witness into choosing between binary opposites, reflecting how cross-examinations are often conducted in an environment which surpasses the layperson’s cognitive ability. This enabled the prosecutor to obtain a proximate set of facts, neither completely true nor false but assists their case. This contrasts with my observations in (R v Insert party). The State witness answered questions with a ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘I can’t recall’ in a confident manner, consistent with Zavitsanos’s principles of cross-examinations. As a result, the defendant’s lawyer had no opportunity to apply pressure. Thus, the vulnerability of a defendant’s witness may skew initially objective facts into the State’s favour.

In an expert report, the legal expert witness will lay out the elements of malpractice and how the attorney’s actions did or did not meet these requirements. The witness may also offer testimony during a deposition on the nature of the claim. After the deposition transcript or the expert report has been reviewed by opposing counsel, the claim may be settled or even dismissed. These witnesses understand how to present the strengths and weaknesses of claims to opposing counsel, which may change their positions in the case.

In the first day prosecuting attorneys were assigned witnesses for direct and cross examination. I was responsible for preparing direct questions to the police officer who was first to arrive at the crime scene. Based on his statement I came up with multiple questions which allowed to determine the events and condition of the victim on that date. While preparing both direct questions and cross examination questions I watched videos of actual court hearings where attorneys questioned witnesses. This approach helped a lot. After coming up with direct questions, which for me the process was interesting and intriguing, I asked my group members to review them and give their feedback. Questions for cross examination gave me most trouble. I found it complicated to come up with sufficient and proper questions in order to question the witness and find the best possible way of subjecting his statement. Videos, both presented in class and ones I found myself did not resonate well with me. Despite that, I uploaded my cross-examiantion questions and asked for the