Joey As A 9 Year Old Boy Essay

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

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.

To begin with, after reading the comments given to me by my fellow classmates; I noticed that some of my classmates didn’t like the idea of jumping straight into book without a brief description. In other words, they felt that I needed to provide an introduction to my paper and make my thesis clear in the beginning, rather than stating it on the second page. With that in mind, and since the readers pretended like they never read the books before, I decided to take some sentences out and rearrange the order of the first two pages. In addition to this, it bothered me that all the response forms interpreted my thesis statement differently, which meant my thesis wasn’t clear to the readers. Granted that some of the readers understood what I was trying to do, I decided to rephrase my thesis and try to make it as clear as possible that way they know early on what this paper incorporates.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

Witness testimony: can be a confirmation or authentication of the activities described in your evidence which your assessor has not seen. This could be provided by a work colleague or service user.

By recreating some of Australia’s most famous criminal cases, the director masterfully highlights that truth and lie are often determined by how evidence is constructed through the “mouths and minds of counsel”. Perhaps most crucially, The Diaries reveals how skilled litigators can exploit the credibility gap between “proven liars” and “credible witnesses” when constructing evidence. Yet the director acknowledges that the law recognises this potential for abuse, and mitigates it by confining the rules of evidence through the uniform Evidence Act (‘UEA’). Ultimately, The Diaries proves that the UEA alleviates Sheller JA’s concerns by limiting the ability of legal representatives to unfairly exploit the credibility of witnesses, and thus allows evidence to be assessed on its merits in pursuit of the

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

This section tests your ability to identify relevant statutory provisions and apply them to a specific scenario. Read the provisions from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and answer the question set.

Moreover, s 42 of the Evidence Act enables for leading questions to be asked. A party has the opportunity to ask a leading question to a witness during

Children’s testimonies have serious implications for the accused and the question of whether or not children are reliable sources of information have been brought to the attention of judges and cognitive psychologists. The history of court proceedings allowing child witnesses to testify has seen an increase in false accusations against teachers, friends, and family members, bringing to question as to why or how a child may come up with false memories. Psychological research into the subject has shed some light on some possibilities as to how some children may be susceptible to manipulations.

With regards to the Right to be Protected from Discrimination, Section 56 of the YJCE Act ensures that when a child gives unsworn evidence, instead of giving evidence under oath, there is no discrimination in the way by which that evidence is received by the court. Both sworn and unsworn evidence is received by the court in the same way and does not affect the question of the competency of a witness.

Choosing whether relevant evidence is acceptable and won't be questioned in court, is the straightforward procedure of assessing the confirmation and deciding whether it is significant, solid, non-biased and can't be protested in the courtroom.

Here, The Diaries was able to capture the intricacy of the law by highlighting that in some instances, contrasting R v Cooley, a witness’s credibility is relevant in determining the truth, and should fairly be called into question. During cross-examination, the prosecutor repeatedly stated “now that is a complete and total lie, isn’t it?” in response to the witness’s assertions of memory loss. Inconsistent statements were pursued relentlessly, with the witness’s response to all irregularities being, “I may have said that, it was 3 years ago”. This exercise was conducted with the intention of undermining X’s credibility and casting doubt on his testimony that he had never seen the eight accused suspects and certainly not been “viciously hog-tied

Agreed Taylor children can be very persuasive so it is best to for them to be interview someone that will not lead them. I believe that children testimonies would be very unreliable though in my opinion because children tend to also have false memories also and wild imaginations. Sometimes also children can since an individual's need for a particular answer so they might feel pressured to just give an answer that will make others happy. I just think it's best to keep children out of the testimony process.

In any kind of investigation, the main thing that is needed for solving it is evidence. Evidence is the only thing that the authorities can use to have justification. If there aren’t any eyewitnesses to be able to justify the crime, then the only thing the judge can rely on is forensic evidence. There are many different types of evidence as the author of “Forensic: Evidence, Clues, and Investigation” Andrea Campbell informs the reader, but for the investigation to be based only on the truth, forensic evidence is needed which is why it is the most important evidence to be presented at a trial.