The accused and three of his friends were involved in a fight with two other men, During the fight, one of the youths pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the men in the chest killing him. The four teens fled the scene. Two weeks later the youths were brought in and interviewed separately by the police. During the interview the officers made it clear that the youths were under no obligation to answer any questions. With the youths consent the interviews were videotaped. In the boy’s statements they had told the police that the accused had made statements to them in which the accused acknowledged that he thought he had caused the death of the victim. The accused was charged with second-degree murder and he entered a plea of not guilty. The …show more content…
At trial, the youths recanted their earlier video taped statements and during the crowns cross-examination pursuant to s.9 of the Canada Evidence Act, the boys stated they had lied to the police to exculpate themselves from possible involvement. The witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements could not be tendered as proof that the accused actually made the admissions. Under common law, they could only be used to impeach the witness credibility. The only other evidence of the identity of the assailant was identification evidence provided by the victim’s brother. The trial judge found that the dock identification was naked and that the brother had only a poor opportunity to observe his brothers attacker. Doubts also existed in connection with his latter evidence because of several inconsistencies between elements of the description of the attacker. In absence of other identification evidence, the trial judge was forced to acquit the accused and the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal. The three witnesses plead guilty to perjury as a result of their testimony at trial. In this appeal, the Crown asks the Court to reconsider the common law rule, which limits the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeaching the credibility of the
The Duke lacrosse case implicated criminal actions of: first degree rape, first degree sex offenses’ and kidnapping charges against three Duke University lacrosse players; Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligman and Dean Evans (North Carolina State Bar v. Nifong, 2007,p.18-20). According to Mosteller (2007) the case started with “gang rape allegations” by Crystal Mangum, a black exotic dancer who was also a student at North Carolina Central University on the morning of March 14th, 2006 (p.1337). The alleged rape occurred during the Duke lacrosse teams’ party at 610 North Buchanan Blvd (North Carolina State Bar v. Nifong, 2007,p.1). Suspiciously Mangum could not make any identifications of her attackers even after viewing most Duke lacrosse team members including the names mentioned above and the lacrosse team members who actually lived at 610 North Buchanan Blvd (Mosteller, 2007, p.1407). Mosteller (2007) also mentions that Mike Nifong had to know that
This is an analysis of the newspaper article on the appeal of the murder conviction of Mr. Gordon Wood. Mr. Wood was originally charged with the 1995 murder of Ms. Caroline Byrne and the trial was held in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in July 2006. During the court case it was stated that Mr. Wood had “hurled his model girlfriend off The Gap in Sydney in a spear throw that lobbed her so severely into a crevice, that a rescue team had to use force to free her body” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2007). Mr. Wood pleaded not guilty to all charges, however the jury found him guilty of her murder. The murder case was taken to State level due to the seriousness of the crime.
In fact, much of the court case is based on onlookers who barely saw any of the incident. Much of what was said was falsified. “Questions were asked of the incident. Lies were given as answers (page 144).” The verdict was decided based on the untruths, and Madam got to choose a punishment for
The reliability and admissibility of evidence becomes a foundation to this truth as any evidence presented cannot contain elements which can provide doubt towards the validity of the prosecution. This can be shown through guideline 14 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions agreement to provide advice for the NSW police towards the legal limitations or consequences of evidence obtained during the course of an investigation (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions n.d). Identification evidence in particular has a lower weight and strength for admission to a court due to the fallibility and circumstantial nature of witnesses. The admissibility of identification evidence was previously determined by judges based on its quality with case law such as R v. Christie providing principles for discretionary powers for admissibility and Alexander v. R providing methods satisfactory to the court for identification such as identification parades under common law. (R v. Christie 1914; Alexander v. R 1981).
While the Central Park Five now refute their own confessions, Coulter stresses that “All those charged with the jogger's rape gave detailed, corroborated, videotaped confessions, after full Miranda warnings, four of the five in the presence of an adult relative” (Coulter). With adults present and videotaping, there was no reason for the boys to give false confessions. These confessions alone are powerful enough to convict the Central Park Five, and during that time the defense had very weak arguments to counter the confessions. In the courtroom, “the showing of the videotape yesterday was regarded as the most damaging blow to the defense in the four weeks of testimony thus far”, and it set the course towards conviction (Sullivan). Any jury listening and watching a youth give such a damning confession would doubt the notion of innocence.
It is concluded that when a forensic examination is done in a crime scene, each determinate must be filed and kept to be analyzed. We have already found that unfortunately that was not the case here. Mr. Henderson and others just decided to look around and tamper with evidence. The prosecution has brought evidence, Minnie’s bird, allegedly found dead by broken neck, to the case that has probable consideration to have been tampered with and could have just been placed there in a possible scenario. Our point of argument retains to be that Minnie is part of a sexist accusation and was not given a fair chance to defend herself.
The prosecutors did not have DNA connecting the boys to the crime, the crime scene did not indicate from than one assailant, only one boy looked like in he was in a physical altercation, and the timeline provided by the detectives placed them at the other side of Central Park when the rape took place. The whole case was substantiated on one type of evidence – their confessions which were recanted afterwards. The boys gave their confession when they were formally arrested, after they were interrogated for over a day without sleep or food. The children say that they were told if they confessed, they could go home. The confessions told were inconsistent with each other and the physical evidence.
During the nine boys testimonials six of the boys denied the rapee entirely, but the other three accused claimed that the other six boys were the ones who raped the two white
In “Murder on Sunday Morning” the documentary follows the trials of Brenton, a fifteen year old who is being charged for first degree murder and robbery. In both trials Brenton and Steve were treated unjustly by law enforcement. Brenton claimed he was hit by a detective, while Steve was overhearing security bet over his trial. In Steve’s
This caused tention between the prosecutors but they quickly found a solution. The police held back this immense evidence because of the credibility and the advancement of the trial. They didn’t wanna take a change by changing the statement, it gave no case to the police and they didn’t wanna take a chance on it. Instead they decided to put that evidence to the side and continue prosecuting the McMartin family. The lack of professionalism and selfishness of the court fed the case more unethical
Because of the mass media coverage and the societal biases regarding the case, the jury found the teenagers guilty on account of limited and biased evidence. The defense was unable to effectively challenge the jury due to these preconceived notions and ideas, despite the jury itself being unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crime described in the
The offence of murder occurs when a person of a sound mind unlawfully kills a human being, under the Queen’s peace with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The issues in this scenario are as follows; whether what Albert heard is admissible as hearsay, whether John’s inconsistent statements are admissible .and whether the death statements of Jane and Patrick are admissible The first issue is whether what Albert heard is admissible as hearsay. In order for Albert’s experience to be admissible in court, he will have to give a statement as a witness to the police.
In Case number two about Jim Randolf forcing terry his niece to do sexual things with him. He was lying during his interview with the interrogator. He was lying by the way he was over answering the questions. When asked what he thought of terry as an “emotionally mature” 11 year old girl and stresses “she’s a kid”. When Jim was asked a question he would avoid eye contact with the interviewer or rub his face with his left hand.
This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All
Overall, law enforcement is not adequately trained in interviewing and interrogating juveniles. While there are numerous courses available in forensic interviewing of children who may be victims, there are few training courses that target techniques for interviewing and interrogating youth who may be suspects or witnesses. Interview and interrogation is standard training for law enforcement agencies, however, it typically does not cover the developmental differences between adults and youth nor does it cover recommended techniques to be used on youth versus adults. This often leads law enforcement practitioners to use the same techniques on youth as with adults. Juveniles may be especially vulnerable to the pressures of interrogation, which