Movie Review: Jolly LLB

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

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

This reading is about a case happened in 1988 and arguments of the case based on different points of view.

The importance of witness testimony is invaluable to any case, but how the testimonies are obtained is integral to assuring that the information given is indeed factual. In the case of

In the case sub judice, the County introduced seventeen pieces of evidence to be relied upon by the Board when rendering its decision. Floyd failed to object to the introduction of any of the evidence entered against him so as to give the Board an opportunity decide upon his objections in the first instance. The failure to adequately preserve these issues impairs out ability to assess the merits of Floyd’s arguments with the benefit of a developed record. We, therefore, hold that Floyd’s objections to the hearsay evidence admitted against him were not adequately preserved for judicial review. Assuming, arguendo, the questions here were preserved, for the reasons stated below we hold the admission of the evidence against Floyd did not deny his procedural due process rights.

Overall, Dr. Fraser’s argument is organized, well structured, and concise, using all three tools of appeal, logos, pathos, and ethos persuading his audience that eyewitness testimony can be seen as invalid. He expresses his argument though story telling, playing a huge role on the logical reasoning, or logos, as well as reasoning abilities. His argument was very effective in getting the audience engaged immediately, using descriptions and visual aids to make it easily understandable to those who are well knowledgeable about the criminal trial process. Dr. Fraser presented his argument in a way that the audience could follow and feel personally involved in. As he states the facts as he became aware of them in the criminal case, Dr. Fraser is in turn, building up to the conclusion of the argument; that eye witness testimony is, at best,

I put that package in her bag. But, did anyone suspect Mr.Burt of the crime?” he asks, and most of the class raised their hands.”Exactly. You should have opened your eyes, and thought that maybe, you were wrong. This girl opened her eyes, and suspected her own client! She makes a truly

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. 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 .

For the defendant to be found guilty of murder, the burden is placed on the prosecutor “to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). In other words, the prosecutor, Mr. Myer must present a strong case to satisfy the jury “that charges against the defendant are almost certainly true” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 35). When the trial started, the evidence was strong enough for a guilty verdict. The prosecution had three witnesses to support the claim that Vole killed Emily French. The first witness, Inspector Hearne, provided the court with blood evidence on the sleeve of Vole’s jacket; however, during cross-examination, Sir Wilfrid disputed the evidence because Vole’s blood type was not excluded as the donor. The second witness was Janet McKenize, Mrs. French’s hard of hearing housekeeper, who stated she heard Vole and Mrs. French talking on the night of the murder; nevertheless, during cross-examination, Sir Wilfrid discredited her testimony when he proved to the jury that she was hard of hearing. The climax of the prosecution came when Mr. Myers, after objections by Sir Wilfrid, called Christine Helm, Vole’s wife, to the stand. Christine was thought to be the wife of Vole but provided

The allegation that, Zaheera Sheikh took money to retract her statement is open to judicial scrutiny. Witnesses turning hostile in several cases take not only the courts for a __ but Justice itself.

This is a kind of justice which we in India are trying to realize through the process of law and our substantive law is being ,geared to this task."

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.

The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward-looking approach since last few years, particularly having regard to the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every