Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified. In Aguilar v. Texas, it was held that “an affidavit based solely on the hearsay report of an unidentified informant must set forth "some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was truthful and acting in good faith”. In this case, there was no information availed to the magistrate so as to make independent and reliable conclusion as to the prudence of the unidentified police informant.
Such a conscious will is lacking, even when knowledge of action is present. People in hypnosis follow the instructions of the hypnotist so their thoughts do not appear as the sole cause of the proceedings. But unlike everyday social interaction in which people can usually follow the instructions of other people without losing any sense of will, the hypnosis process seems to have undermined the perception of conscious will. In hypnotic induction, the hypnotist suggests a series of actions, many of which are so harmless that a person does not see difficulties in their fulfillment. Each hypnotist gives instructions, after which the person thinks about the actions and subsequently performs the action.
This is why the evidence used to convict said people was not legitimate. The evidence used to incriminate these individuals included, public confession and ownership of the “devil’s mark”. Ocksreider states, “...The magistrates openly encouraged public confessions. To elicit such confessions, the prosecuted were often subjected to stand for lengthy periods without sleep or food while being questioned” (Pg. 14).
On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. The witness' declaration is testimony to prove the Mr. Michelson had a good name in the community. That testimony is not permitted. Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 401(a) shows also that it would be immaterial as Mr. Michelson was arraigned with the crime of bribery and not provoking altercations or having ill will is not relevant to the bribery that Mr. Michelson had been charged.
The defendant was charged with two offenses of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of offenses against the person act and assaut. He denied the charges claiming that the sexual intercourse had been consensual. The judge ruled that it was open to the jury to convict the defendant and that whether or not the complainant had known of the defendant condition any consent between them was irrelevant and provided no defence. The defendant chose not to give evidence and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to sexual intercourse was not left to the jury. The defendant appeal and succeeded and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to the risk of the sexual transmitted infection and to whether they knew the defendant HIV condition.
In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession. If the
Consequently, when interrogators go into interviews believing the suspect is guilty, it brings on intense amounts of stress, putting suspects at a higher risk to crack under pressure. E. This increased pressure brought on by misclassified interrogations cause innocent suspects to feel so much stress they confess to a crime they did not commit. F. Misclassified errors are just one way suspects feel their only option is to give a false confession in order escape the pressure in the interrogation room. II. Other psychological tactics, such as coercion, are used in the interrogation room to attempt to get a confession out of someone interrogators believe are guilty.
The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge as against some of the accused is not proved and, as such, they were acquitted and sentenced some of the accused who were convicted for murder under s 302 of IPC. ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT: Convicts challenged their conviction before the High Court, and by the impugned order the High Court allowed appeal of all the accused except one. State’s appeal was also allowed and the accused was convicted under s 302 of IPC. Being aggrieved by this order the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. Appellant Darshan Singh took the specific plea
Hypnosis What is hypnosis? Hypnosis is the induction of a state of consciousness in which an individual loses the power of voluntary action and is highly responsive to suggestion or direction. Its use in therapy, typically to recover repressed memories or to allow modification of behavior by suggestion, has been revived but is still controversial (Psychology Today). While hypnosis is often associated with sideshow performances, it's not a magical act. Rather, it's a technique for putting someone or yourself into a state of concentration where you are more suggestible and thus more open to messages about breaking bad habits or changing in other positive ways.