Ultimate issue

In a criminal trial or a civil case, a jury or magistrate court in England and Wales is required to determine and analyze the disputed factual issues. With such a requirement, expert witnesses in the relevant field are called upon to assist the fact-finding body interpret and understand evidence or opinion with which such a body is unfamiliar. The current approach to the admissibility of expert evidence within the judicial system of Wales and England is that of laissez-faire (Akers, 2000). Within

understanding of the issues and factors she analyzed. These issues

which is related in their field of expertise, or the experts have to provide an opinion which is relevant to an issue in the case; otherwise, the opinion of the expert will be inadmissible. The court may occasionally ask an expert to provide evidence of facts too. For example, the court may ask an expert on a particular machine to give evidence on how it operates, if it is relevant to an issue in the

I went to a forensics psychology seminar and listened to Dr. Lilijequist talk about her experience has a forensics psychologist. She said that “forensics psychologists are not as cool as they seem on tv, and that all they do is assess and evaluate prisoners, and people getting ready to testify at court to see if they are mental stable”. She said that “some lawyers would call her up and say that they want her to come to this conclusion about their client”. Also, she said “that most forensics psychologists

JUS 485 Midterm Exam Answer the following questions, which are based upon the first four modules of the course. 1. Explain why it is that evidence gained through the forensic science process is almost always considered to be circumstantial evidence. The most important fact that makes forensic evidence circumstantial is because science cannot be clearly defined by law. The legal system have created standards and written legal rules regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence. When forensic

Department in July 2017, that the Department failed to address or issue an updated Notice. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND DEPARTMENTAL POLICY 55 Pa Code § 275.4, in applicable part (g) Hearing proceedings. (2) Agency staff responsibility at the hearings. The County Assistance Office and other agencies as appropriate will prepare for the hearing so that evidence considered in making the decision or taking the action which is at issue and evidence that supports that decision or action will be introduced

Forensic psychology has made unique contributions to risk assessment with respect to the potential for violence and dangerousness, the accuracy of eye witness testimony, the dimensions and assessment of legal competency According to Krauss, Liberman, & Olson, the Texas dealth penalty case Barefoot v. Estelle showed that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony, and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony. By applying cognitive-experiential self-theory

The Substantially Likely Factor The government has failed to demonstrate that the forced medication of Mr. Whitman against his will, is substantially likely to render him competent to stand trial. To protect the liberty interests of defendants who are initially too ill to stand trial, the Supreme Court implemented the four-pronged Sell Test. Per the holding of Sell, in order to physically subdue and forcibly medicate a sick defendant who has not consented to treatment, the government must demonstrate

Nigerian law of Evidence, the opinion evidence is irrelevant in court trials. Thus section 66 of the Evidence Act CAP E14, Laws of the. Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 provides that the fact that any person is of the opinion that a fact in issue, or relevant to the issue, does or does not exist, is irrelevant to the existence of such fact except as provided in sections 57 to 65 of the Evidence Act. Exceptions to this general rule are contained in sections 57 to 65 of the Evidence Act, which make opinion

Dr. Ronald M. Boggio, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, was the one that Allen (the client) was referred to by the Virginia Department of Corrections (as required by Code 37.1-70.4 (C)), for an evaluation report in which he conducted and completed. Dr. Boggio, was also an expert witness testifying for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Under Multiple Relationships which both covered by APA code of ethics sub-category 3.05 and Specialty Guidelines code 4.02; that he should have refrain from entering