Evidence law

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). In the case of Adnan, he was provided with both of these rights and guarantees, but just because he was proven guilty in court does not mean he killed Hae Lee on January 13, 1999. On February 25

States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $ 10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Federal case law holds that there are two elements to the crime of treason: adherence to the enemy and intent to betray. Absent one there is no treason.  To sustain the charge of treason the government must prove the following

DISCUSSION FORUM _ LESSON 4 1. Summarize the Federal Rules of Evidence in your own words. The Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) enacted in 1975 and replaced prior centuries of various and sundry judge made caselaw. The F.R.E. is a complex set of statutes or penal codes legislated with the intent of replacing unfair evidentiary submission and/or unnecessary expense and delay among the courts. The basic concept behind the F.R.E. is the need for a consistent and predictable federal rule set

denied everything, but he did detail the events of the previous day. Mr. Adams was informed by the police that he had failed a lie detection test and that Harris had passed, but Adams still held that he was innocent. At this time the only actual evidence implicating Adams in the crime is the testimony that Harris gave to the police. During Adams ' trial at the Dallas District court, Turko testified that the driver had the same color

We the jury find the defendant, Not Guilty! Today is the last day of the trial. We have heard all of the witnesses and now we know that we must deliberate. I know that some of the “witnesses” are liars. Some make valid points and I know without a doubt in my mind that Captain Preston is an innocent man and that his men were provoked. As I listened to the witnesses, here is what I came to believe: The witnesses for the prosecution have very different stories as do some of the witnesses for the defense

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN CONSTANCE WOLF, ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 06-626 v.s. ) LEWIS E. OLSON and ALBERT DOBIASH, ) MOTION: Defendants. ) Trial by Jury Demanded ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE OF SERVICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer

According to USLegal (2016) an expert testimony is, “the testimony made by a qualified person about a scientific, technical, or professional issue”. An expert that is familiarized with the subject of matter is generally called to testify. In the instance of the Little Rascals Case: State V. Robert Kelly and The Martinsville Trial an expert witness in children suggestibility was called to testify known as, Maggie Bruck. Bruck (1998) wrote about her experiences in these trials and the pitfalls of performing

In the Absence of Evidence On the night of December 23, 2002, Scott Peterson killed his wife, Laci Peterson, and unborn child, Conner, in cold blood. He then dumped their bodies in San Francisco Bay and returned home (Case 1). At least, that’s what the prosecution would want you to think. Was Scott Peterson proven guilty of his wife’s murder beyond reasonable doubt? No, he was not, and here’s why. How did the prosecution prove that Scott had killed Laci? Well the day Laci went missing, at around

at the scene of the crime and whether they were made by the defendants’ 1964 Buick Skylark. Federal Rule 702: Testimony by Experts states, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Gardner, T.J., Anderson, T.M. (2010). Ms. Vito had specialized

In the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals the court of law recommended standards for ascertaining if scientific substantiation was dependable and therefore allowable. Daubert standards pertain to all the U.S. Federal Courts and only in several state courts. Still, the FBI ought to go all out to meet the Daubert criteria for biometric substantiation used in each prosecution. The analytical requests of biometrics are not topics to Daubert standards so biometrics can be castoff in explorations