Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of evidence in a criminal case
Hearsay problems evidence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of evidence in a criminal case
Hearsay problems evidence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of evidence in a criminal case
Dudley’s statements contained inconsistencies. Further, it led to the belief that Dudley was simply trying to exonerate himself as a witness when giving his statement against Moir. In addition to Dudley, another key witness Mr. Gordon’s statements also had inconsistencies. Gordon claimed that he had given a shovel to Moir prior to Acorn’s death. This may lead the jury to believe that Moir’s involvement in Acorn’s murder was planned and deliberate (para. 27).
What more, he was subject to Smith’s falsehoods which incited unnecessary panic and fear. To that respect, Smith was guilty of Intentional Misrepresentation. 1 Story’s Eq., §§192, 193; Johnson V. Chadwell, 8 Humph. 145: Davis v. McNalley, 5 Sneed,
a) The police had conducted due investigations including a background search on the ownership of the premises and the vehicle that was being used by the suspects. The background search results corroborated the unidentified police informant’s accounts on the suspect’s identity. Thus the police had probable cause to believe the suspects were involved in criminal activities. b) Based on CRI-2 account of the activities of Mildred, and the background check by affiants, their inference that Mildred was in fact involved in illegal activities was indisputable and as such the affidavit satisfied the test of reliability and the judge needed no further or extra information to issue the search warrant. c) The period the affiants were involved in observing, documenting and piecing together different parts of evidence necessary to form a probable cause as to the conduct of the suspects is sufficient and meets the test of “acting in good faith” to obtain the warrant to search the person of the defendant and vehicle and are not in any violation of the defendant fourth amendment right to privacy.
The prosecutors in the Wayne Williams case presented evidence and witnesses in the case. None of the witnesses, in this case, witnessed Wayne Williams commit any murders. The witnesses were there to testify about what they noticed Wayne Williams do, that was not normal or unusual. The testimony which was the most damaging was Angelo Foster who was a former press secretary to the mayor. He gave information about a conversation that he had with the defendant’s father.
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER In response to the first issue, Marshard explains “my file notes state I met with Mr. Sylvia to explain that the Court would appoint him an attorney to explore his 5th Amendment right and to discuss with him whether he wished to waive or assert that right.” Marshard maintains that she wanted Silvia to know he was a victim in this matter and not a defendant. She states this was important because “(1) the pending clerk’s hearing where charges were being pursued by Mr. Petersen and (2) Mr. Sylvia had often been a defendant when the court appointed him an attorney.” Marshard claims Silvia “does not always appear to accurately grasp the situation.”
(“Casey Anthony” paragraph 1-2) Casey Anthony told many lies throughout the trial, and each time they found evidence of the lies she had told. The Court found Casey guilty of four counts of “providing false information to a law
It was not odd that they would not confess the first demonstration as reasonable proof against the accused and the trial continued after this acknowledgment was deemed forged, even though this witness was the sole grounds on which the accused names were originally issued was baffling. The early accusation is must be taken on reliance, and the reliance in Branch was dubious and not proven, best emphasized by this quote, “Perhaps, as the ministers suggested, her torments were a combination of involuntary fits and crafted performance.”
The jury was shown videos of more normal times for the family, when things seemed to be going well. Expert testimony also played a role in the outcome of the first trial. The evidence presented in this case was able to help the jury come to a decision when determining Mrs. Yates final
After a twelve-hour interrogation, Brenton Butler confessed to the murder of Mary Ann Stephens. A key claim made by the defense attorneys in this case was that this was a false confession, and after reaching a verdict of not guilty, the jury clearly agreed. The factors that led the false confession were laid out in a scene during the documentary. Instead of using the interview to discover the truth, the interrogators specifically sought out a confession from the suspect. They began the interrogation with the presumption that Brenton Butler was guilty.
Russo had alleged that White had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her when, after she dated him one time, he called her hundreds of times and hung-up the phone when she answered. She even alleged that he knew when she was inside the house or not. The court decides that “it was more than reasonable for her to feel that White was likely to escalate the matter to the point of violence”. Id. The court agrees with the plaintiff and assume, without deciding, that defendant 's conduct rose to the level of outrageousness required to support the cause of action even if the court held that there was no intentional infliction of emotional
By these actions, Alex Billings suffered emotional distress, and required treatment. The defendant deprecated Alex over text messages on his fashion, facial features, and actions, even after Billings told him to stop (38). The fact that Pearson continued to harass Billings, is a clear sign of intentional distress Pearson must have been angry towards Alex Billings, still irritated at the situation with the counselor. Therefore Pearson continued to harass Billings. Without texting, many of his snide comments would not have reached Billings.
Defendant has only made statements to ruin Coach Josephs’s reputation. Coach Josephs was the only coach cleared of any involvement in the scandal, but Defendant was not satisfied with the police investigation. Defendant was not satisfied with Coach Josephs’s offer to testify at Court. Defendant will never be satisfied because she wants Coach Joseph to pay for her son’s death, and she has proven that she is willing to make reckless false statements to make him pay. Every statement Defendant makes is targeted at damaging Coach Josephs’s reputation, which makes them
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,
The initial investigation on the laptop is what led to the investigation of Richard’s work computer. Evidence not only showed that of spoliation on both the couple’s laptop and Richard’s work computer but also multiple similar instances of witness tampering as well as perjury. The judge stated that if proof of spoliation of evidence on Richard’s part was evident then his judgement would not be in favor of Richard the defendant. After the spoliation case was closed the child custody case would begin.
Could they be wrong? “ – Both the statements listed above involve use of the fallacy of “Begging the question” 3) “How come you believe the woman’s story, she is one of them too, isn’t she?” – This fallacy is what we call as Hasty generalization. According to him, since the woman who gave the testimony against the boy lives in the same locality as the boy, her testimony can also be doubted upon. He tries to convince other jurors with this seemingly inappropriate