Legal Case Analysis Essay

In some circumstances the statement can be used as evidence without the support of the victim and the final decision in regards to continue with the prosecution will depend on the CPS and police seriousness of the crime and available evidence. It may be decided it’s in the public interest despite the wishes of the victim.

Throughout the defence's cross-examination of the first witness, it became very clear that the lawyer was acting to undermine the veracity and reasonableness of her statement, done so by repeated insinuations that her memory was at fault. This approach was seen again while cross-examining the second witness, where the defence relentlessly chipped away in a dogged fashion at the character of the witness through mention of his prior criminal convictions. The defence also seemed to be trading on the fact that the witness was intimidated by being in court, and also his apparent limited mental facilities. The role of the adversarial advocate was also reflected by the prosecution solicitor, who in re-examination of the first witness sought to focus on points made by the witness that established a distasteful character of the

2. The witness must be reminded of the time, place, and circumstances of the statement in a specific manner, although some states prohibit this.

If you contend that the Plaintiff has made an admission, or declaration against interest, please state the substance of the alleged admission or declaration together with the time and place of the alleged admission or declaration and the names and addresses and telephone numbers of the persons, if any, who were present.

The first grounds for an appeal, in regards to Arika’s testimony, is that identification evidence of Bargo at [20] was wrongly admitted. Except as otherwise provided in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (EA), in order for evidence to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Evidence will be considered relevant in a proceeding, if that evidence when accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. The facts in issues are the elements of the crime with which the defendant is being charged. Identification evidence from a witness is made up of the witness asserting that the accused is the person the witness heard, saw, or smelt perpetrating the crime. In the present case, Arika’s testimony would be classified as identification evidence, as she asserted that Bargo was the person who she had seen rape her.

Issue: 1. Does the statements of the Shepard’s wife admissible under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule? 2. Does the statements of the Shepard’s wife made to her nurse were admissible to show her state of mind, thus qualifying as an exception to the hearsay

The hearsay is a statement made out of court, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, under rule 801(2) admissions of a party- opponent, a statement offered against that party, falls under the exception from the hearsay rule. Here, the statement was made at the scene of the accident where Erin told Pete that she was “in hurry to make a pizza delivery and that is why I ran the red light.” Since the statement meets requirements of “admission of a party-opponent”, therefore, it is non-hearsay and should be admitted into evidence.

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.

Under section a-5 of ILCS 705 405/5-401.5 any written or oral statements of the defendant

Firstly, this transcript is not hearsay under FRE 801(d) (2) (a). It is offered not to provide the truth of the matter provided but rather to prove that these words were certainly spoken. Secondly, the former testimony expectation applies to Ms. Steinman’s testimony because it was given under oath. And thirdly, the Park crew’s hearsay is not excluded because it tends to prove the Crew’s then-existing

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

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

To further understand the difference between character evidence and habit evidence when introducing it in a court of law, or if one is contemplating to introduce it always referring to the relevancy of the case and the FRE Rules pertaining to both types of evidence should provide a clear picture of which action is appropriate to take accordingly (Cummins and

According to the rule it doesn’t matter if the statement is oral or written, it will still be inadmissible in court if the statement was made outside of court. “In-court” statements are statements made by a witness while testifying at trial. (Criminal Evidence: An Introduction, Pg. 284 ) There are exceptions to the rule, such as when a witness is unavailable to testify at trial. If a witness is unavailable in court, hearsay could be made available as evidence in court. There are several other exceptions to the rule such as, excited utterances, then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition, the business records exception, the official public records exception, dying declarations, statements of family history, forfeiture by wrongdoing,

The hearsay rule is based inherently on the concise definition of hearsay. In this regard, hearsay can be defined as any statement other than that made by an individual in the process of testifying at a hearing or trial, which is offered for purposes of affording evidence of truth pertaining to a particular matter. According to the Cornell University Law School (2014), the hearsay rue is the rule that prohibits out of court statements from being admitted as evidence at a trial. B and large, the hearsay rule is motivated intrinsically by the understanding in the belief that hearsay is unreliable. For example, if a witnessed stopped at a scene of a car accident and a survivor intimated to him or her that the driver caused the accident, this statement cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the same. It is imperative to understand that the hearsay rule, according to the Cornell University Law School, bars all such evidence, whether oral or written.