The 2011 federal district court opinion from the Middle District of Pennsylvania addressed a general public misconception regarding the Rule of Evidence 701. Indeed, Eric Lyons attempted to use his x-ray results and his physical symptoms against the defendants even though he lacked the expertise to prove that his broken rib injury resulted from his fight against Anthony Boyking. Furthermore, Lyons also believed that his contender benefited of the defendants’ involvement to defeat him. Certainly, Eric Lyons may have been accurate about his rights under the Eight Amendment, however, the law could not take into consideration his testimony due to the fact that his deposition would not qualify as a subject matter expert in the medical field. Thus, the pretrial order the defendants pursued to prevent the plaintiff 's personal contribution regarding his physical symptoms is legit regardless the truthfulness of Eric Lyons’s statement.
prosecution, which led them to believe that there were many issues within the system that led to the wrongful conviction that needed to be fixed so another minority was not charged with a murder that was not committed by them. The Inquiry found that the investigation was not done suitably for the standards that the police, and the Crown have. The case’s evidence was insufficient due to lack of investigation at the crime scene, of the witnesses, and of the charges pursued. There was also an insufficient amount of sensitivity of this case due to the fact that it was the prosecution of a visible minority and the lack of training done on the respect to sensitivity on visible minorities. As well as the absence of sufficient review led to the wrongful conviction because they didn’t review the first eyewitness reports and relied only on the second report, which were influenced by an incompetent and unprofessional
The obvious route that Lavallee was going to take to defend herself in this trial was claiming self defense against Rust. When claiming self defense there are three conditions that you need to follow, the first being that you were under unlawful attack at the time, the second being that they were posing a similarly threat to you and the third being necessity of defensive action. To the layperson it would seem right away that Lavallee was acting out of self defense after hearing the story of her unfortunate night, but the prosecutors believed that Lavallee’s situation wasn’t grounds for self defense. For the defense of self defense all three conditions need to have happened for it to work. The first being that Lavallee was not under unlawful attack due to the fact that she stated Rust had his back to her at the time of the shooting, meaning that he was not in a position to be assaulting her. An issue found in the second condition was that there was no threat uttered to Lavallee that put her in immediate danger, the threat uttered to you cannot be a future threat and Rust stated to Lavallee that he was going to kill her that night and not that moment. The third condition stated that Lavallee must have an alternate defensive action
The defense during this case tried to convince you that Mrs. Stephens was a helpless abused wife. Let me ask you, is Mrs. Stephens helpless when she was able fire a gun and put three bullet holes in her husband? And how is she helpless when she was given many opportunities to escape from her husband for her safety and her children’s safety? However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,
I think it would be difficult for the prosecution to form an argument off of my points. The prosecution admitted that they don’t argue that Ms. Stephens is a victim of abuse, but rather is not suffering from battered woman syndrome. Once I use all of my witnesses and explain how Ms. Stephens is a clear case of battered woman syndrome, I think they will have a difficult time arguing that considering she clearly has every sign and symptom. The only argument I think they can use would be that because Mr. Stephens went to take a nap, Ms. Stephens could have just called the police and not shot him herself. I think members of the jury may also agree with this purely on the basis that those who aren’t victims of abuse can easily have the mindset that
"The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence to the effect that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses who evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross-examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. The defendant is not guilty, but somebody in this courtroom is" (Harper 203).
On August 26, 1990 in Shepard, Alberta, Heavenfire killed her husband, Derrick John Falardeau, after being in an intoxicated altercation that evening. Before the death of Falardeau, both were seen at a bar, where they were asked to leave because of their fighting (Sheehy, 2014, p.129). A witness, Kathy Kennedy, saw Falardeau punch Heavenfire in the face repeatedly before driving away. A short time later, Heavenfire called 9-1-1 to report that she had shot Falardeau in the head (Sheehy, 2014, p.129). Heavenfire was charged with second-degree murder and went to trial to try and plea her case with a battered woman’s defense. Battered woman syndrome is described as “a physical and psychological condition of a woman who has undergone emotional, physical, or sexual abuse from a counterpart” (Khana and Sachdeva, (2015, p.8). Heavenfire and Falardeau’s relationship was plagued with violence. Several witnesses for the prosecution and defence noted seeing bruising on Heavenfire on multiple occasions. A particular witness, Linda Newton, a counselor at a vocational college “saw bruising on her face on at least five occastions” (Sheehy, 2014, p.134). In the end, the jury was able to see the effects of the physical and mental abuse suffered by Heavenfire as they acquitted her of all charges. Making Heavenfire “the first Aboriginal woman to be acquitted after the Lavallee ruling
By chance, Christopher Jensen, a reputable corporate attorney was recruiting lawyers to handle the appeals of death row inmates. In an intriguing quote, Mr. Jensen compared Elmore’s case to that of O.J. Simpson, “You want to draw a perfect parallel. Look at these two trials. Two guys charged with murder. No eyewitnesses. Lots of forensic evidence – blood, fingerprints, hair. Elmore gets a three-day trial, no meaningful defense. Simpson’s goes on for months. Look what money gets you.” Assigned to the case, is young defense attorney Diana Holt. She was the only hope Elmore had left, everyone has since given up. Holt had a hard past of her, own including sexual abuse. She ultimately became the driving force that pushed the defense on appeal. She fully committed herself to Elmore’s case, certain that he was an innocent man and her help was
I believe that Lindy was innocent from the start. If proper forensic tests were performed then the jury probably would of arrived at this decision as well.
(Morris & Pilon, 1992) The yelling that the guests’ and neighbour had heard mingled with what sounded like fighting, what was heard from the guests’ were sounds of pushing, shoving and thumping. (Morris & Pilon, 1992) During this conflict Lavallee had apparently cried out “he punched me in the face” more than once, subsequently after the fighting had happened people around and inside the house had heard gunshots. (Morris & Pilon, 1992) Lavallee had, indeed, fired 2 shots at Rust with a .303 calibre shotgun, the first shot had missed rust and the second shot pierced the back of Rusts’ head, killing him as he was leaving the room. (Morris & Pilon, 1992) Prior to the shooting, Lavallee claims that Rust would have killed her if she did not kill him, this was heard from Lavallee by the arresting officer while Lavallee and the officer were on their way to the local police station, Lavallee had also told the officer that Rust said he would kill her when all the guests had left the party. (Morris & Pilon, 1992) Afterward, a police officer and a doctor had pieced together the injuries on Lavallee’s body and noticed that the injuries she had; represented the defensive stance she took during the physical
In the end, officials found that Tammy Marquardt had not committed the crime she was convicted of. They also found that the prosecution against Marquardt mainly orbited around Charles Smith’s accusations, which were mostly untrue. It turns out, Smith was not qualified with the proper training, he was not a forensic pathologist. Other than that, he liked to “think dirty” as stated in npr.org . Smith focused on convicting Tammy Marquardt and overlooked other possible causes of death. It was found that Smith had made a lot of mistakes and even spoke dishonestly in court. The other senior officials did not even point out his faults. Smith was also a terrible witness in court. He lied and made false claims that were not supported by the evidence. He told theories not facts. Sadly, the jury believed him. During the investigation, six pathology experts clearly stated that the cause of death was undetermined and was not homicide. One of those pathologists, called Dr. Simon Avis, found that young Kenneth Wynne had epilepsy. He would often have seizures and had multiple trips to the hospital,
Lavallee claimed self-defense on a case of battered women syndrome. A psychiatrist – Dr. Shane - that Lavallee started seeing defended her in the case that she felt that is she didn’t do something she would be killed that night. Lavallee was acquitted and the Crown appealed the case. Manitoba Court of Appeal as crown said that he jury ignored critical evidence. It was also brought up that the testimony given by Dr. Shane was unlawful (his testimony would influence the jury’s decision). Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal; the case was then sent to the Supreme. At the Supreme Court of Canada evidence was shown that indicated that Lavallee had been suffering this abuse for years. Lavallee was acquitted due to the fact that she had acted out of
Such facts and events were produced from interviews outside of the trial, unsworn statements – hearsay. The case could not be decided solely on these facts that were not sworn or first-handedly heard. Lavallee was a very important source of Shane’s information and her failure to testify weakened the credibility of his testimony. The Abbey (R. v. Abbey, 1982) decision offers the appellant to solely allow the expert witness psychiatrist to give his testimony, with little to no weight being held on the facts, or for the appellant themselves to take the stand and confirm the liability of facts in the expert witness’ testimony to ensure greater weight is given to such facts (Ottawa L. Rev., 1985). With Lavallee as one of Shane’s main sources for information, he would have to completely reassess his position in the case that she had been untruthful. A fact to note is that Shane admitted to being misled by patients in the past, which puts his testimony into even greater question concerning Lavallee’s credibility (R. v. Lavallee 1990). As mentioned in Ottawa L. Rev. (1985), statements and interviews made outside of court are not only questionable in sincerity, but also in memory and perception. Since much of Shane’s testimony is based on evidence that had not been proven to exist, the weight to his testimony must be minimal. With such a focus on hearsay, or second-hand evidence, it is required that less
A soon-to-be father who lived near the shooting, Register had a confirmed alibi of being at the unemployment office that morning, and yet somehow he was labeled guilty of first-degree murder (Bazelon). At the same time as Register's arrest, a hesitant Anderson explained to the prosecutor that it was possible she had been confused during the identification because Register was her former classmate (Bazelon). She also mentioned that she had not seen the criminal very well as he scurried away from the scene (Bazelon). A law professor named Brandon Garrett reported that out of 75 percent of the 250 overturned convictions, more than one-half involved apprehensive eyewitnesses who gradually became confident in their decision (Bazelon). This was the case with Register and the two eyewitnesses who had the ability to impede his freedom with frayed "puppet strings." Although originally lacking in confidence in what they had seen, Anderson and Singleton had continued with their testimonies against Kash (Bazelon). A gut-wrenching final verdict echoed throughout the courtroom like ringing bells of despair. "I didn't do nothing!" Register exclaimed through tears (Bazelon). He was incarcerated for a chilling thirty-four years until Sheila Vanderkam, Brenda Anderson's sister, became driven to reopen his case (Bazelon). Anderson was a damaged person, and her sister knew that was because she had lied during the testimony (Bazelon). Since there was no physical evidence, Anderson was deemed an unreliable source, and Register was finally exonerated (Bazelon). Even though justice prevailed, contaminated eyewitness accounts had caused Register to tragically miss the birth of his daughter, grandchildren, and three decades of a normal
According to Ms Ewell, she had asked Robinson ‘chop up a chiffarobe’, letting him into her house before she was raped. Mr Ewell had reportedly seen Robinson having sexual intercourse his daughter through the window of the house. Mr Ewell said in his testimony that the room looked ‘slung about, like there was a fight’ when he had run home, hearing the screams of his daughter. He claimed that Robinson had ‘run out the front door’ before he could get to him. Mr Ewell then looked for the sheriff, Mr Heck Tate. When questioned by the defense attorney, both men admitted that they had not called a doctor as they had thought it ‘unnecessary’, although Ms Ewell was ‘bunged up’ on the right side of her face, had bruises on her arms and finger marks on her throat. However, Robinson’s left hand was crippled, contradicting the prosecution’s stance, as Ms Ewell’s attacker should have used his left hand to hit