Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under 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. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. 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).
III. Circumstantial evidence is not inferior 4. However, the fact that circumstantial evidence uses an inductive basis is not necessarily an indication of inferiority. In the seminal case of R v Exall which was famously founded on circumstantial evidence, it was explained by Pollock CB that: “One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence - there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion: but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit
Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that a victim's rights should have priority over the rights an accused criminal. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that such a bias would essentially break our justice system. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that victim rights should not trump criminal rights is the strongest position, the position supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that the Bill of Rights protects people accused of crimes, such a stance presumes guilt, and the accused has much more at stake than the victim. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoints will be discussed next.
Despite all of that, questions may arise from the topic such as is it right to detain a person before trial just to have him to be presented on the day of trial in case he is deemed guilty or is it right for one to confiscate a suspect’s money (bail money) to be certain that he will pay for the fine later as part of his sentence? Such actions made are clear that it is violating the presumption of innocence as it was only ‘assumed’ that the person is indeed guilty and applying a pre – trial detention is based on the reliance of ‘double suspicion’ as such to the case of Sheldrake v DPP. [cite] The point is further discussed by Lord Bingham based on the case of Sheldrake v DPP, “The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirement of mens rea.
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.
The accused must be so far away at the relevant time that he could not be away at the place where the crime was committed. TAKE ON PLEA OF ALIBI IN DARSHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB FACTS IN BRIEF: There was dispute between complainant and his relatives on one side and accused persons on the other side regarding their turn of irrigating their fields. On account of this, earlier there had been incidents of assaulting each other. Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against all the accused relating to offences punishable under various sections of IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 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.
A piece of evidence also used with the case was Jessie Misskelley's confession. Jessie’s confession is widely considered invalid because the methodology utilized to obtain the confession violated many police procedures. This confession can be compared to the Judges interrogating suspects, because the Judges widely wanted the outcome of guilty to be brought upon the accused. A sad aspect of the two situations is that both trials were more or less guilty until proven innocent. The last aspect as to why the trials were unfair is that both the citizens of Salem and the West Memphis Three were handed the same judge every time, which in the mass majority’s opinion is
But the accused does not have an inherent right to appeal against his conviction and the same has to be conferred by a statute. Part XXI-A of Cr.P.C provides legal sanction to plea-bargaining thus making it an procedure established by law and thus does not violate the rights of the accused, keeping in mind adherence to the 3 key criteria to fulfil legality of plea-bargaining i.e. Knowledge, Intention, Voluntary. Sec- 265-G of Cr.P.C, judgement delivered by the court under section 265-G shall be final and no appeal (except the special leave petition under Article 136 and writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution) shall lie in any court against such
No cause reaches the stage of litigation unless there are two sides to it. If the witnesses on one side deny or qualify the statements made by those on the other, which side is telling the truth? Not necessarily which side is offering perjured testimony, there is far less intentional perjury in the courts than the inexperienced would believe, but which side is honestly mistaken? for, on the other hand, evidence itself is far less trustworthy than the public usually
Jillson did not personally inspect the Property. Any testimony or opinion offered by Mr. Jillson will be based on the observations and opinions of Mr. Prieve; in other words, hearsay is the only basis for Mr. Jillson’s testimony and opinion. If it can show good cause, Defendant is free to use hearsay for the limited purpose of showing the basis for Mr. Jillson’s opinion; however, the observations and testimony from Mr. Prieve are not independently admissible. Therefore, if Defendant seeks to admit Mr. Prieve’s observations and testimony into evidence to support its arguments, then they cannot be introduced through Mr. Jillson. See Minn. R. Evid.