Presumption Of Innocence 3

This is not an easy paragraph to satisfy. The showing that must be made before the motion will be granted under this provision is that the evidence is not only “newly-discovered”, but that it is evidence of such quality that it will “probably”, not merely “possibly”, change the result in the case. And the movant should also show why, with reasonable diligence, the evidence could not have been discovered in time for the trial, or at least in time to move for a new trial under CPLR 4404. (The time for the post-trial motion is tight. See CPLR 4405 and the Commentary on it.)

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

During the year of 2015, a case that the Innocence Project was working on at the time was the Joseph Buffey Case. Joseph Buffey was convicted in 2001 in West Virginia of rape and robbery. Mr. Buffey pled guilty to the crimes based on the advise of his counsel and witness misidentification which was the heart of this investigation. On May 11, 2015, Mr. Buffey was excluded by DNA and the real perpetrator was later found. Mr. Buffey served a total of 15 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. DNA Exonerations makes up 334 total cases that the Innocence Project has worked on. The following numbers overlap with the 334 cases. 237 cases involved misidentification by witnesses, 154 were the result of improper forensics, 92 were due to

This Organisation is a non-profit Legal organisation dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustices. The Innocence Project was established in a landmark study by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Senate in conjunction with the Benjamin N.Cardozo School of Law, which found that incorrect identification by eyewitnesses was a factor in over 70% of

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.

When a defendant is accused of greater offenses, he has the right to have the court charge on lesser offenses included in the indictment, when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence that supports the defendant’s theory.

``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

This Organisation is a non-profit Legal organisation dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustices. The Innocence Project was established in a landmark study by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Senate in conjunction with the Benjamin N.Cardozo School of Law, which found that incorrect identification by eyewitnesses was a

Rule: ‘“While in some of the cases cited and relied upon by the Commonwealth lesser amounts of drugs were in issue, there was evidence in addition to the drugs themselves which was susceptible of an inference of the intent to distribute and which was inconsistent with the notion of personal use.’ Commonwealth v. Wooden, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 417, 423–424, 433 N.E.2d 1234 (1982).” Com. v. Ahart, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 413 (2005)

Firstly, we will consider the customary character of the introductory phase and sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1. The customary character of the introductory phase and sub para 1 (a) was never in question, both State practice and opinion juris clearly show that these initiatives had a lege ferenda character. Furthermore, subsequent practice also confirmed the customary character of the provision. However, with regard to the customary character of paragraph 1 (b) and 2 there exist several controversies. It was only introduced at the last moment, as an amendment by the UK and had been adopted by a very narrow margin. Paragraph 1 (b) of Article 56 states that certain treaties by their “nature” contain implied denunciation clauses but it does indicate which those treaties are. As a result, in order to identify these categories of treaties which is the raison d’etre, of subpara. 1(b), one turns to custom. Hence, the existence is customary law of a single category of treaties of this nature would suffice to show the customary character of 1(b). Therefore, Article 56(1) does show customary character of

In the summer of 1994 an Illinois woman’s buzzer rang at her apartment complex in Waukegan. She went downstairs to check after nobody went upstairs to her apartment. As soon as she reached the door downstairs, two men forced her into a dark colored sedan, kidnapped her, and raped her. Distraught after her attack, the victim wandered until she ultimately found a Seven Eleven close by and the police were called. When the police arrived, the victim said she was attacked by two Hispanic men that looked to be in their mid-twenties and a bit taller than her height of five feet and seven inches. The car that she was forced into was described as dark colored, older, having four doors and tinted windows. The victim’s boyfriend saw Angel Gonzalez’s car in the apartment complex parking lot and it matched the characteristics that the woman used to describe the assailant’s car. Police later stopped Gonzalez’s car and the victim acknowledged that the car was the one she described. She was then asked if Gonzalez was one of her attackers, and she was certain that he was, despite her being in the backseat of the police car while he was in front of it. Not only was he not close enough for her to get a clear view, but he also had facial hair and a birthmark, both characteristics that she did not use to describe her attackers. This led to Gonzalez being in police custody for interrogation where they did not allow him to sleep. When he was interrogated, he

As society changes, our legal system evolves with it. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the principle of double jeopardy meant that a person couldn’t be tried a second time. This act amended this principle, allowing serious crimes, such as murders, to be re tried if some new evidence became available.We will be asking ourselves if these amendments has greatly improved our system of justice, by focusing on why these amendments were made and whether the advantages of such a reform prevail on the disadvantages.

The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a landmark study by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Senate with help from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (Schneider, 2013). This study found that there were numerous reasons why people are wrongfully convicted including, but not limited to eye witness identification, perjured testimony, improper forensic science techniques, and government misconduct (Roberts & Weathered, 2009) The original Innocence Project was founded twenty two (22) years ago as a part of the Cardoza School of Law of Yeshiva University in New York City, New York (Davis, 2012). The Innocence Projects primary goal is to exonerate those whom have been convicted of a crime when there is DNA evidence available to be tested or re-tested (Mitchell, 2011). DNA testing has been possible in five (5) percent to ten (10) percent of cases since 1992 (Risinger, 2007). On the other side, other members of the Innocence Project help to exonerate those have been convicted of a crime where there is no DNA evidence to test. A goal of the Innocence Project is to conduct research on the reasons for wrongful convictions, how to fix the criminal justice system, as well as advocate for those who have been wrongfully convicted (Steiker & Steiker, 2005). The members of this organization strive to teach the world about the dangers of wrongful convictions. To date, this non-profit legal organization, has freed three hundred eighteen (318)

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

With Article 6, a person is guaranteed to the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him. The ECtHR in case laws has broadly