Defense Counsel And For The Prosecution

Decades before the implementation of the Human Rights Act , Viscount Sankey’s prose in Woolmington v DPP alluded to the presumption of innocence as the “one golden thread” which runs through the web of English criminal law . He essentially establishes that the legal burden of proving the defendant’s guilt lies with the prosecution . This principle is arguably underlying in every jurisdiction that respects ones right to a fair trial and is the foundation of the criminal law. There are two important themes that must be discussed relating to the principles set out in Woolmington: Firstly, in this case it was acknowledged that there can be instances where a reverse burden of proof is applied and that in fact, the onus is on the defendant to prove his innocence rather than for the prosecution to prove his guilt. Secondly, despite some departure from the Woolmington principle, it does not inevitably necessitate that the law has been unfaithful to its underlying rationale. A common deduction of the Woolmington principle is that Sankey, in his judgement, is ambiguous and left too much open to interpretation. Furthermore, it has been argued by Adrian Zuckerman that the way in which something is written can in fact lead to a justified imposition of a legal burden on the defendant and that the accused will only have to prove their innocence by disclosing an onerous burden in situations where legislation expressly commands them to.

Forcelli explains his displeasure of our broken criminal justice system when he states, “The sad part is that getting an innocent man out of jail is way, way, way harder than putting a guilty man in jail.” When detectives are constantly pressured to close cases and produce high conviction rates it can cause in accuracies in convictions. Garry’s case is a perfect example of how a case with minimal evidence can result in an innocent getting placed in prison. Garry has sat in prison for over 20 years waiting to appeal his case and plead his innocence. The ease of convicting an innocent man should be consistent with difficulty of exonerating an innocent man. In Garry’s case he awaits a decision from a judge where the judge has three options, to exonerate him, grant a retrial, or

The case Anthony Ray Hinton which reached is prolonged conclusion in 2015 demonstrates what harm can be caused by the inadequate performance of an attorney. Hinton was convicted for a two murders during armed robberies. The only evidence provided by the prosecution during his trial was a ballistic expertise which matched the bullets found at the scene of the crime and the gun of the defendant’s mother. Hinton’s defense attorney failed to provide the funding that was needed for expert witnesses which would have been able to rebut the prosecutions expertise. Anthony Ray Hinton was declared guilty and sentenced to

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does Search and Seizure relate to the B.I.G. case?

The purpose of this full advice on evidence is to defend client William Hague. The client is on trial for murder under section 302 of the Queensland Criminal Code (henceforth known as QCC). Under section 305 of the QCC the client may be facing life in prison. Queensland’s Supreme Court trial division shall hear the potential case. Persuasive burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the client committed the murder. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ may not be directed, defined or elaborated to the jury. The client possesses an evidential burden to raise any defences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Separate counsel is advisable in all cases where the defendants could have differing interests leading to a conflict of interest for the lawyer. For example, in a case of two defendants charged with a crime where either has an opportunity for an individual plea deal in exchange for providing testimony against each other, a single lawyer would be unable to provide both clients with effective assistance. In such a case, the advocate would be unable to provide the best possible advice to his clients because of the inherent conflict of interest arising from a lost win scenario of the plea deal (Hall, 2015). However, if each individual had their respective lawyer or attorney then their lawyer would be able to provide them him with full attention

All available physical evidence is handled competently. Evidence will be recorded and processed correctly and inside the law procedures.

I too, like Ms. Burleson, am curious why Oklahoma is ranked second in the nation. I feel you have a strong topic and I like how you chose a topic regarding something you have observed while working in law enforcement. You also bring up an interesting point with how mental illness has been brought to light in the recent years in reference to shootings and murders. In my opinion and observations, I have observed a recent trend of defense attorneys using the mental illness title as a possible defense. More often than not their clients pass the competency evaluations with little to no problem.

Severance works somewhat differently in federal criminal trials because this case involves the indictment of more than one defendant Jones, Walsh and Bert. In Bert 's situation, his defense attorney will provide an argument that a joint trail might be unfair against Bert or reaching a decision on the rape charges against him. The Severance is not automatic because the Federal rule 14 allows judges broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a severance to Bert. To be successful, Bert’s defense will to fill a motion for his severance which must show the concerns for Bert 's right to a fair trial outweigh the goals of the joinder. One of the most successful grounds for seeking severance for Bert arises when Bert wishes not to testify on all, some or any of the charges in the trail but chooses to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege on one or more charges. The separating by court order, such as separate trials for Bert, Jones, and Walsh who are charged with the same crime, or trying the negligence aspect of the rape charge or any other charge before the trail. Such division of issues in the trail is sometimes called "bifurcation." ("Burton 's Legal Thesaurus," 4E. (2007).

The currently effective laws in the UK and Australia grant the jury in charge no access to previous criminal record of the defendant. While the law makers argue that this rule is to prevent the accused person from disadvantageous prejudgment, other lawyers are no disputing over this claiming that the jury should be given all the past details before he or she reaches the final decision. Agreeing this law article is purely for protective purpose, I, on the other hand, firmly believe that the past facts should also be put into consideration such as the seriousness and frequency of his committing crime.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).

important that the prosecutor make it clear to the accused that he is not able

The mystery, “Witness for the Prosecution”, was produced in 1957 by Arthur Hornblow, Jr. and directed by Billy Wilder. The two lead male actors were Tyrone Power as Leonard Vole and Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfrid Robarts. The lead female actor was Marlene Dietrich as Christine Helm.

As stated by Lord Chancellor Viscount Samkey[1], it is essential that the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant in criminal cases. Hence, the burden of prove solely lies in the hands of the prosecution. The obvious reason to this is because everyone is entitled to a fair trial with a general presumption of innocence until proven against.