Witness For The Prosecution Essay

Afterward, the defendant council is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. In the movie, Vinny cross-examines each witness and successfully refutes their eyewitness accounts. The prosecution's last witness is a forensic automotive instructor with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vinny objects to this witness because there was no advance notice and he asks for a full day's continuance, but his objection and continuance are overruled. Vinny has no rebuttal for this witness because he has had no time to gather evidence or interpret the reports. Instead, he brings in his own expert witness, Mona Lisa Vito, a former mechanic who proves that there was a second car at the crime scene. The prosecutor asks for a "voir dire," which refers to questioning witnesses about their qualifications. Vinny's final witness, the sheriff, has discovered two men similar to Bill and Stan that drove a similar car and committed the crime. Because of this, the prosecutor asks the judge to dismiss the

In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.

Since the series revolves around real life events that occurred, it is quite accurate how the criminal justice is represented. In the series, we see everything that we would see in the criminal justice field, for instance the courtroom actors such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bailiffs, courtroom clerk, and jury. Everyone in the O.J. Simpson was important and they all received more attention than they should have, but the ones who got the most attention and had the biggest role in this case was the jury. Jury selection is selected from the eligible population over the age of 18 who has complied from the DMV. There is a voir dire that process by which jury members are selected, attorneys and judge seek to gain information about

The courtroom work group consists of individuals who work together to successfully prosecute a case, such as criminal prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and probation officers. The courtroom work group, then, carries the case through the justice system to its logical conclusion dismissal, conviction, and failure to convict. Although the public is set to believe that the judge makes all the principal decisions in the court, he or she normally accepts bail recommendations from prosecutors, plea-bargains from defense attorneys, and sentence recommendations from probation officers. Defense attorneys, private or appointed, ensure that the defendant's rights are protected and they are to defend their client throughout all criminal proceedings.

Module 1 Assignment Introduction When determining whether or not an individual is being deceptive or truthful they demonstrate verbal and nonverbal markers. Pamela Meyer's Ted Talks “How to Spot a Liar” (2011) specifically explains these tactics. In our lecture presented by Murray Bartley (2015), he shows our class a video named “The Reid Interview Technique” to practice distinguishing between deception and truth. There were two cases presented in the video, the first being Mary Stanton. Mary Stanton is being accused of fondling the boy she babysits Brad Johnson, son of Marlene Johnson.

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

The most likely targets in the courtroom are witnesses, judges and attorneys because judges are in a position of authority, attorneys will try to protect their client’s well-being and witnesses can testify against the person or group. The courts can now allow the public to view cases from a monitored television and judges can also view clients from a monitor to give sentence without being in the presence of the client physically.

Jury trials in the United States Criminal Justice system often evolve many key elements to ensure a fair and just trial. One fundamental component that ensuring the integrity of a trial is a jury. It is the jury’s job to process though vast amounts of information to determine whether they convict or acquit a defendant of any and all charges. Typically, it is assumed that jurors will make their decision solely based on in information presented in court, not what’s presented in the media or points irreverent to the case. However, this assumption may not always hold true as it is possible for other factors to skew and fog a Jury’s finial decision.

A lawyer referred to her as a “star witness,” (Hoose, 88). Once the courtroom was cleared it was time for the judges to make their decision. After

Prosecuting those who commit crimes is very important to the overall wellbeing of society and the citizens within society. Prosecuting and convicting criminals not only prevents them from committing another crime, it also serves as a deterrent to others that may be considering breaking the law. Many courts make up the judicial branch and these courts are responsible for applying laws made by the government. The courts are made up of courtroom workgroups that are the basis of the courts proceedings.

Hello judges, jurors, and everyone else present in this court room today. My name is Dr. Alyssa Diaz and I am an expert witness. I was called here to testify on this court case. Also I am here to inform you how examining a piece of hair from a suspect from a crime can help to find out who actually did commit the crime. There are some basic things that people should know about hair.

Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.

Here, The Diaries was able to capture the intricacy of the law by highlighting that in some instances, contrasting R v Cooley, a witness’s credibility is relevant in determining the truth, and should fairly be called into question. During cross-examination, the prosecutor repeatedly stated “now that is a complete and total lie, isn’t it?” in response to the witness’s assertions of memory loss. Inconsistent statements were pursued relentlessly, with the witness’s response to all irregularities being, “I may have said that, it was 3 years ago”. This exercise was conducted with the intention of undermining X’s credibility and casting doubt on his testimony that he had never seen the eight accused suspects and certainly not been “viciously hog-tied

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

Christine knew that her alibi would not be believed. After all, people thought she was married to Leonard. First, in court there is a rule that spouses can not testify against each other in court, so when Christine went up to the stand to testify against Leonard everyone knew she was not really Leonard's wife. Second, Christine’s testimony was full of negations against Leonard's own testimony. She talked about her previous marriage, what time Leonard left the house and came back. Christine's testimony pulled a very strong case against Leonard. Hence, since... Christine was not actually Leonard's wife, she could testify a strong case against him.