Legal Submission of Case in Ireland

Eyewitness evidence has always been considering critical information when it comes to court trials and convictions. But how reliable are eyewitnesses? Scientific research has shown that eyewitness’s memories are often not accurate or reliable. Human memory is very malleable and is easily changed by suggestion. Relying on eyewitness evidence instead of scientific data often leads to wrongful convictions. Scientific evidence is much more reliable, and should be more important in court cases than eyewitness evidence.

Recent news stories, such as, ‘Operation Yewtree’, the police investigation into historic child sexual abuse allegations made against the British media personality, Jimmy Savile and others have highlighted the debate about eye witness testimony. The historic nature of these cases is only now being looked into due to the incidents taking place over four decades ago, which means the most of the witnesses where recalling memories from when they were children. However, this does raise the issue as to why these cases were not looked at when they occurred. Since 1980’s-1990’s it has been more common for children to testify in court; this is particularly important in abuse cases.

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.

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

When Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was take from hospital to Sutherland police station he was interviewed/ interrogated like a suspect as the case had been turn to a sexual assault case and he was told that, “in the case of assault upon a wife, we always check out the husband’s story first”, (McLeod-Lindsay, A, 1984). Another role of investigators is to collect evidence. The police had bought a change of clothing for Alexander McLeod- Lindsay, so that they can take the clothes that he had wearing as evidence. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had now become the suspect of sexually assaulting and attempting to murder his wife and son. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was found guilty of attempted murder due to the circumstantial evidence that was bought forward before the jury such as the blood splatter that was on the wall and blood stains found on the accused Alexander McLeod-Lindsay’s clothing. Despite the fact that there was no form of direct evidence such as someone eye witnessing the incident or even to point the finger that Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had committed the attempted murder of his wife and 4 year old son Bruce, the jury still convicted him of committing the offence, all based on circumstantial evidence. This highlights that Alexander McLeod-Lindsay experienced miscarriage of justice due to the fact the jury based their decision on the circumstantial evidence of blood stains that were found on Alexander

The Prosecution relied mainly on evidence from both the police and unsworn (meaning the witnesses were not put under oath at the time their knowledge of the events occurred) testimony of three young children. The first child was a 6 year-old boy who was thought to be with Corey and the accused at the

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the height of the father. This takes an effect on the evidence against the boy because he is 6 inches shorter than his father was. So it would have been harder for the boy to stab the dad it would of taking

From the essay, The Dead Baby Mystery, Gawade starts with a court case that involves the murders of eight children of Marie Noe that no one could explain what happened. As Gawande writes, “some of the most respected pathologists of the time, could find no explanation for the crib deaths” (202) and “Foul play was strongly considered, but no evidence for was found” (202). What Gawande has written is that at the time, cases like these, child murder or accident, determines not easily. Even three decades later — the case reopened and she was charged — one of the officials that wrote back to Gawande stating “that there was no direct evidence to support the charges” (Gawande 204). That quote Gawande wrote to show that the charge came from indirect or circumstantial evidence. With what has happened to Noe and the children, Gawande postulates that charging people in the child abuse case is difficult to do because it uses circumstantial evidence. Thus, what I write for this paper will be a summary of Gawande's points in the essay The Dead Baby Mystery of how it is difficult to convict a Marie Noe in a child abuse case.

Due to doubts surrounding the forensic evidence in this case it may have led the jurors to have reasonable doubt regarding returning a guilty verdict ("Forensic Analysis of the Casey Anthony Trial - Crime Museum", 2017). The jurors finally found Casey Anthony guilty of aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child ("Forensic Analysis of the Casey Anthony Trial - Crime Museum",

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention, on this exceptionally significant case. My client Mary Maloney is being accused of murdering, her husband, Patrick Maloney. Due to a lack of physical ability, how would a woman who is six months pregnant be able to exert enough force to execute her six foot five inches husband? Let us not forget that her husband was a senior officer, trained to defend himself for a living. There is no reason for Mary to kill Patrick. They love each other and they never did anything immoral to each other. Mary is a lonely, obedient woman with no job and loves her husband very much. Mr. Maloney arriving home from work was all she looked forward to. Why would she even carry out such a thing? Mary Maloney couldn’t have killed him due to a lack of physical ability, motive and evidence. From all those facts we all know, she is an innocent woman.

One of the most controversial and polemic trials of all times since the OJ Simpson trial was the case of Casey Anthony and the murder of her two year old daughter. All the evidences and witness revealed that she was the main suspect in the murder of her daughter; however in 2011 she was found not guilty of this murder due to several different aspects. This paper will inform and provide the reader with detailed information about this case. In addition the reader will find out what was the outcome of this case and will provide the evidence and will summarize the criminal procedures that occurred from arrest through appeal. The elements of the crime and the evidence which prove that she was guilty will be

Second, we must look at the affects of being a witness not only on the legal system but also on the child as an individual. Children could be further traumatized emotionally and physically by involvement as a witness. Finally, we need to closely look at how the legal system is set up and how well children fit into this system. Are witness procedures set up in a way that children can understand and accurately give their testimony? These are the things that need to be looked at closely to determine if children can be reliable and credible witnesses in court.

The causes of wrongful convictions are easy to identify: irregularities and incompetence at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages of the criminal justice system. More particularly, Kaiser identifies the following contributory factors, among others: false accusations, misleading police investigative work, inept defense counsel, misperceptions by Crown prosecutors of their role, factual assumption of an accuser’s guilt by actors in the criminal justice system, community pressure for a conviction, inadequate identification evidence, perjury, false confessions, inadequate or misinterpreted forensic evidence, judicial bias, poor presentation of an appellate case, and difficulty in having fresh evidence admitted at the appellate stage. Each instance of determined wrongful conviction illustrates a different combination of failures in the criminal justice system that has

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 .

In the second part of the following essay I will be nominating one source of evidence that is present at the scene of a scenario. I will be discussing in my own words how Police should collate, handle and analyse the piece of evidence in a Criminal Investigation. In doing this I will be using relevant crime scene powers, NSWPF operational guidance and making reference to the Horswell (2004) reading.