Court Case Study

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

Prosecutors normally meet witnesses at a relatively early stage in the proceedings to discuss special measures and related issues. The witness’s overall subjective experience of participating in criminal proceedings might thereby be enhanced.

We attended the ACT Magistrates Court on 6th October 2017. We observed a criminal case.

The dynamic at Pretrial Services could be really fast or slow. When we receive a call from the Marshal’s office about an arrest in the morning, we have to immediately meet the defender for an interview because most of the time the court hearing is set for that same afternoon. The Pretrial Service Officers have a short period of time to do the interview, check the information with a relative provided by the defendant, run background checks and write a report to be submitted to the court and both

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

Turning to the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see that the witness account played a great deal in the conviction of Morin. Mr. X falsely testified against Morin because he did not like Morin. The crown also used evidence from undercover officers where statements of Morin were recorded on a 60 minute tape recorder, which the officers believed to be 90 minutes. This made the case interesting because the crown used this instance for saying that Morin confessed to the crime after 60 minutes. This showed false accusation that was made both by the police officers and crown attorneys.

I plan to attend the a homicide trial. I went by myself to Sonoma’s Superior Court buildings the day before and asked a woman working which cases would be good to go to and she recommended I come in the next day to see a triple homicide trial on Mark Capello. I have never been to a court proceeding before, so I am not exactly sure what to expect. I am excited at the prospect of viewing a homicide case. Will it be like the court shows on television? I enjoy watching dateline, and in that show they actually play clips of real court trials that have occurred. However, they only show the most interesting parts for television. I expect that this court proceeding will be different to what I have seen on t.v. I am picturing myself being

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

I saw my first bond reduction hearing at High Point’s courthouse. A middle-aged woman was in jail for assault on a female, which resulted in minor injuries. The defendant had four biological children and two adopted children. She reported that she had employment before the crime. The defendant was requesting a bond reduction. To help her case, the victim of the crime wanted to appear before the judge to speak on the defendant’s behalf. The judge might not have dropped the case, but the witnesses’ testimony could have persuaded him to reduce the defendant’s bond. The judge asked the witness for identification, but she did not have it. So, the judge dismissed the motion for a reduction in bond. The witness had some power to influence the judge.

Before the victims movement, victims were ignored in most court systems by the professionals who process criminal cases. Victims were often seen as inconvenient. The victims rights movement has changed this unfair treatment. As time passed prosecutors’ offices in the most jurisdictions spend greater time than they did in the past giving notice to victims and consulting with them about decisions made in their case. The staff of the prosecutors offices and court systems have a responsibility of shepherding victims through the intricacies of the criminal justice system. For example, they send a notice providing information about the systems operation, and to help them secure protection of threatened victims who have suffered harm. Laws have changed to allow victims to be present throughout trials in a number of jurisdictions. Victims information or their voices are heard in court, mainly at sentencing, and at the time guilty pleas are received. All of this has had changed by giving the victim the respect and dignity they need, honoring their participation and

The defendants are dressing regular clothes. They still have freedom and can leave the courtroom finishing the hearing. All defendants are in the same courtroom waiting for their turn. They usually stand up in front at the judge and besides their lawyers when starting the hearing. Sometimes, the judge advices them or make questions to them.

I returned Ms Dunlap call. She said wants to place a formal complaint against the CPS worker Miranda Larson because she illegally removed her children based on false accusations. She stated that Miranda, like the entire CW are doing criminal activities. She then asked me if I had talked to her attorney? What was my conversation about, What did I disclose to them? What did they told me about her? "Be honest" she said. I informed her that I do contact her attorney because in one her DHS 0170 form the Discrimination Complaint form, she provided us her attorney's phone number and my conversation was about how can we contact her. She said that we should not be talking to her attorney because she just fired her.

Where a witness statement or a witness summary is not served, the party will not be able to call that witness to give oral evidence unless the Court allows it.

Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness