Facts Angelique Lavallee killed her common law partner, Kevin Rust, by shooting him in the back of the head late one night after a party at their home. Lavallee was frequently a victim of physical abuse in the relationship, defining her as a battered woman. She made several trips to the hospital for injuries, such as bruises, fractured nose, black eye and multiple contusions, excused by unbelievable reasons. Witnesses testified to seeing and hearing the abuse committed by Rust onto Lavallee prior times to the party as well as at the party that evening. The shooting occurred subsequent to an argument that Lavallee and the deceased had been having in the upper level of the home, after Rust had reportedly told Lavallee to kill him or he would …show more content…
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 …show more content…
v Lavallee (1990), expert testimony is admissible if the evidence is relevant to the case, even if it is based on hearsay. Though the appellant did not testify, rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows hearsay statements to be considered in the event that the appellant refuses to testify (Matson, 2004). The hearsay evidence assists the expert in determining their opinion, but it is not used as evidence to the existence of the facts. As long as there is some admissible evidence to the expert’s testimony, the jury or judge cannot ignore it – the greater matter is determining how much weight should be given to the testimony. The judge is required to warn the jury of the reliability and credibility of the information, and to determine a weight at which the jury should use to influence their decision regarding the case (Ottawa L. Rev.,
Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (2002) Plaintiff - Richard Sauvé Defendant - Attorney General of Canada, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada & the Solicitor General of Canada FACTS The Plaintiff: Richard Sauvé is a former member of the biker gang ‘Satan’s Choice’. In 1975, Sauvé was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for the murder of an opposing gang member. In 1993, Sauvé started a long journey fighting an injustice that denied all inmates the right to vote.
D. Ohio’s Evid. R. 403 Unlike its federal counterpart, the Ohio evidentiary rule 403 is separated into two sections: (a) mandatory exclusion and (b) discretionary exclusion. Even relevant evidence “is not admissible” when the probative value is substantially outweighed by evidence that (i) is unfairly prejudicial, (ii) confuses the issues, or (iii) misleads the jury. This clear language promulgated by the Ohio rule-makers establishes greater protections for defendants, and strips trial courts of their discretion in certain evidentiary matters.
As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
The battle between Alberta and Osceola, leaders of their tribes, was to take place in the swamp. The leaders were seeking claim to the land. Alberta was intelligent, self- motivated and hardworking. Osceola was presumptuous to say the least. The tribe led by Osceola had plans to defeat Alberta and her tribe, but Alberta establishes a plan to demolish them.
On balance, the probative value of evidence of Ms. Fitzgerald’s drug use is extremely high and substantially outweighs any risk of either unfair prejudice or undue delay. IV. MS. FITZGERALD’S PRIOR DURG US IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITON ON HEARSAY UNDER RULE
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
In examining the role of expert testimony in criminal law cases, there are several factors to be considered; the most significant is the question of what weight is given to the expert witnesses’ testimony and what affect this has on the outcome. In cases to determine whether an offender ought to be labeled as a dangerous offender, these questions have reaching implications. The medicalization of deviancy, and the role of expert witnesses in presenting their psychological and psychiatric findings to the court, deeply affects the outcomes for the offenders involved. By medicalizing risk and relying on diagnoses such as psychopathy, the medical experts’ testimony contributes to the pathologizing of criminal individuals and leads to higher rates of dangerous offender designations.
A story that seems highly improbably or impossible is likely to be so. The bigger the embellishments the more likely it is that the testimony is false, the same could be said of minimizing a story. A testimony that casts a witness in a near perfect light lends to their lack of credibility. In R. v. McKay, there were special scrutiny both as a result of judicial experience and as a matter of law. Accomplice evidence is recognized to be potentially dangerous because an accomplice may be motivated to shift blame away from him or herself to otherwise distort evidence to gain advantage.
He begins his speech by saying that there was not enough evidence for the court to even come to trial, stating, “The State has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place.” He points out that the evidence shows that Mayella
II. LEGAL STANDARD Proposed expert testimony is inadmissible unless it satisfies three prerequisites under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Lauzon v. Senco Prods. , Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001); Kruszka v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 28 F. Supp.
He says “the state has not produced one iota of medical evidence.” This makes the jury think about how valid
After reading this case I was terribly shocked about the fact that something like this could happen in our medical history. I couldn’t believe how a patient could be neglected so much. Based on the material that we have learned the lack of ethical theory of deontology in Dr. Evan was disturbing. As a doctor Dr. Evan’s role is to care for patients, keep them away from harm and prolong their life. Though in the trial he stated as if he didn’t care.
In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee the term mockingbird symbolizes innocence in a person. In the novel it focuses on the fact that innocence, represented by the mockingbird, can be wrongfully harmed. There are two characters: Tom Robinson and Arthur “Boo” Radley that are supposed to represent the mockingbird. In the novel, Tom Robinson is the best example of a mockingbird because he is prosecuted for a crime he did not commit. Also, he was judged unfairly based on the color of his skin in his trial.
Another distinct group of scholars has vast perceptions regarding the quality of truth that was revealed during the TRC proceedings. They argue that the TRC did not impose on victim statements the balance of proof required in criminal cases, that of confirmation and substantiation of proof, and rather utilised the balance of probabilities utilised in civil litigation. Bolstering their arguments, they add this circumvented lawful necessities vital to due process, essential standard of reasonableness, and the protection of the innocent. It is important to note that such perpetrator protective arguments enkindle curiosity on dual grounds. Firstly, the TRC was not a court, therefore the benchmark for due process should irrevocably differ.
How reliable are eyewitness account? “I believe I saw him!” says the eyewitness. Nowadays, eyewitness account plays a very important part in court, as well as in the investigation of a criminal case. It is often referred to as a reliable source of evidence by the judge and jury.