Romulo Takad (1aa)

* He goes on to say that the law requires a reasonable doubt to acquit someone, but he thinks that a shadow of a doubt should be enough – as long as there’s the possibility that the accused is innocent.

Another element is Specific Intent, which is a mental purpose, target or intention to accomplishing a specific damage or result by acting outlaw. The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to define a special state of mind that is mandatory, with a physical act, to constitute crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually means calculatedly or knowledgeably.

The court had reason that these facts, taken together, constitute evidence of presence at the scene, participation in a show of force, association, during the attack, and flight. This evidence also supports the inference that the Mace was sprayed to incapacitate Mr. Tucker, so as to allow Mr. Anderson and the others to leave the crime scene without restraint or further identification of the attacker or his vehicle. This evidence is fully sufficient to support the jury 's finding that Mr. Kobel was an accomplice in acting with Mr. Anderson with a common intent and purpose. As an accomplice, Mr. Kobel is guilty to the same extent that Mr. Anderson is guilty.

1. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

There has been considerable interest and study in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the current criminal justice system. Results collated by several studies add to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. Currently, high emphasis is being placed on reviewing and reconsidering eyewitness accounts (Leinfelt, 2004). In particular, recent DNA exoneration cases have substantiated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). In this essay, the use of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system will be explored, with a particular focus on the impreciseness of this practice.

Turning to the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see that the witness account played a great deal in the conviction of Morin. Mr. X falsely testified against Morin because he did not like Morin. The crown also used evidence from undercover officers where statements of Morin were recorded on a 60 minute tape recorder, which the officers believed to be 90 minutes. This made the case interesting because the crown used this instance for saying that Morin confessed to the crime after 60 minutes. This showed false accusation that was made both by the police officers and crown attorneys.

While the presumption of innocence is not laid out explicitly in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled stating that “the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf” (Coffin v. United States). John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, should have known that his statements did not give the defendant his due presumption of innocence.

However, chapter five and chapter seven are also different. The prosecutor’s behavior and conduct are displayed differently in these two readings. The crime in chapter five is treated like nothing and in chapter seven it is taken seriously. In chapter five the prosecutors lack the willingness to take bike theft serious and seek harsher punishments. In chapter seven, the prosecutors are quick to act against the rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault allegations, as well as determined

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

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,

Being the basis of the judicial system, someone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) it was determined that the prosecution must share information with the defense that shows the defense in a positive light or that would help the defendants case if they are requested by the defense. Prior to Brady’s admission in the crime he and his counsel requested from the prosecution any statements that were made by the man that Brady stated did the actual killing. The prosecution provided some of the statements but did not provide the statement where the other man admitted that he committed the murder. Since the prosecution had withheld this statement from the defense, Brady’s

Within the criminal law offences require either proof of intention or proof of recklessness as the law is there to punish the people or organisations that end up causing damage or harm by taking

contend that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding that Rodriguez harbored two criminal objectives. They argue that evidence demonstrates that Rodriguez both shot at the van to intimidate Frye and also fired with the additional intent of harming Frye.

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.