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).
According to Daubert, the “smell of death” evidence would have had to meet the criteria in order for it to be used as reliable evidence. First, the evidence needs to be tested to see if the expert can receive the same result each time, it needs to be done.
Lack of physical evidence: Overall in this case there was a lack of physical presented. There were no conclusive DNA results in the case. There was no weapon recovered. The majority of the evidence presented in this case was circumstantial evidence produce by witness testimony.
In its third execution of 2022, Arizona executed Murray Hooper for a 1980 crime that was never analyzed using modern forensic methods. In the days preceding his execution, his attorneys continued to request DNA testing and pursued new claims of prosecutorial misconduct based on evidence not revealed until Hooper’s clemency hearing. All challenges to his conviction and death penalty have failed. In an investigative report published the day before Hooper’s scheduled execution, Liliana Segura of The Intercept reviewed the issues of race, misconduct, and innocence that have been central to Hooper’s legal challenges.
The Supreme Court found, after analysis of the case, that they did in fact commit an error. The main issue was the misinterpretation of the Daubert/Wilt standard by the trial court. The significance of the Daubert/Wilt standard is to provide a framework for determining the reliability of expert testimony. The court using the Daubert/Wilt standard checks to determine whether the expert used a methodology recognized by the scientific community for rendering their expert opinion and whether this methodology was correctly applied. If it was and the scientific expert is deemed qualified then the testimony is considered reliable and can be used at trial.
Significance for forensic practice a. While Dusky had already established that a defendant has a fundamental right to not be put on trial unless he can satisfy the two-factor requirements to demonstrate competency, this case clarified that states must use a preponderance of the evidence to evaluate competency during a criminal trial and cannot place a clear and convincing burden of proof on the defendant to show that he is incapable to stand trial. b. Summarily, a State may not proceed with a criminal trial after the defendant has demonstrated that he is more likely than not to be incompetent, and cannot demand high level level burden of proof. VII. Discussion a. I agree with this decision. When a state has the liberty to heighten the burden of proof placed on the defendant to prove incompetency, I agree that there is a serious and significant threat that some defendants who are indeed incompetent may be unjustly deemed competent.
In society many find that males hold dominance and make all of the major choices. This is just a stereotype that many people seem to believe. There are many stereotypes for a variety of concepts but that does not mean they are true. There are few females that stand up against sexist stereotypes, but for the few people who have spoken out against them literature has been an effective way of getting their message out. Feminism has impacted literature in several ways; it allows people to share their messages about stereotypes.
Under the modified Daubert standard, relevant scientific evidence is only admissible if it is centered upon testable hypotheses, conforms with the standard rate of potential errors, has been peer reviewed, and if the method is generally accepted in the scientific community (Hoog, 2008). However, there are three problems with the application of the Daubert standard. Firstly, David E. Bernstein and Jeffrey D. Jackson (2004) proved that there was no uniformity in the application of the standard in the sense that it’s only abided with in a portion of the states, and not necessarily with full adherence. Secondly, since the judge is not a scientist, it is difficult for him/her to, without doubt, determine the full honesty of the experts’ testimonies. An example from the Willingham case would be the two medical experts asserting that he was a sociopath although one was an irrelevant family counselor and the other, known as “Dr. Death” and later expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for ethical violations, had not even spoken to Todd Willingham.
Today, modern standards require the burden of proof be brought forth by the plaintiff, or prosecution in criminal cases. This means that the accused no longer has to prove they did not commit the crime, but the prosecution has to prove that all the evidence proves the accused did in fact commit the crime in question. Circumstantial evidence is not enough, but physical evidence, or forensic evidence is now required in modern courts for a conviction. Additionally, the modern standard when considering evidence, and for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The Scientific Revolution showed that a rise in observations and conclusions became an acceptable source of knowledge and truth, where it had been less so in earlier
The debate on the “Scopes Trial” was another conflicting issues happened during the 1920’s. The “Scopes Trial” occurred on John Scopes who was a high school teacher of Dayton, Tennessee. John Scopes was charged with illegally teaching the theory of evolution. When the trial took place in 1925, William Jennings Bryan was among those who were against Scopes and wanted to ban the teaching of evolution throughout the nation. William Jennings Bryan, who was a Fundamentalist of old-time religion, believed God was powerful and the Bible should be taken literally.
What is a scientific question? A scientific question is the second step in the scientific method, in which the experimenter asks a question that can be answered by creating hypothesis. In this article the scientific question that they are addressing is a new technique that lets scientists edit DNA. This is raising difficult questions in transforming science. In this experiment Niakan placed a human embryo, she will steady the embryo a fertilized egg that has not began cell division.
Madison Stewart 11/08/2017 POL 465 Essay 3 The Scope of Judicial Review and The Meaning of Substantial Evidence: Comparing Universal Camera Corp v. NLRB [340 U.S. 474] and Allentown Mack Sales and Service, Inc. v. NLRB [522 U.S. 359] Substantial Evidence is a standard set by the Supreme Court that is to be followed when lower courts review agency decisions in cases involving specific clauses of the Administrative Procedures Act (codes 556 and 557). This standard states that substantial evidence is culmination of details that would lead a reasonable person to the same finding as the agency if presented with these facts and details. Cases subject to the Substantial Evidence Test are trial hearings involving administrative
The judge and jury in a court case are suppose to take the information presented and use it to decide if the defendant is innocent or guilty. This decision relies on conducting a proper investigation. All the evidence should be presented and used correctly, even if it might not seem significant at the time. Also, the information provided should be as correct as possible with numerous amounts of detail. All suspects should be investigated at the same level of scrutiny as the others to ensure whether are truly innocent or guilty.
What are the factors which would need to be considered? The Judge plays an important role in ruling whether scientific evidence is necessary and appropriate and would decide whether the psychologist can testify about the results from DCAT . The Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) provides guidance on the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) require that the Judge ensure that “an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” FRE 702 (2012) states: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the
