Case: State v. Mire (2016 WL 314814, 2014-2295 (La. 1/27/16)). Facts: On February 9, 2011 Quint Mire shot and killed Julian Gajan during an out-of-season deer hunting trip In Little Prairie marsh. Mire picked up all of his shell casings and did not attempt to help Gajan. Mire did not go straight to the authorities but he tried to cast suspension on others.
The cases of O.J. Simpson and Lizzie Borden are two court cases in American history that are 100 years apart, conversely are very parallel. On both occasions the verdict comes to be the same: not guilty. Circumstantial evidence, which is defined as evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion or fact, was heavily utilized in the process of prosecuting both subjects. Both Orenthal James Simpson and Lizzie Borden should be found guilty of murder due to the continuous number of things that prove their guilt.
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).
Have you ever thought if a criminal could be falsely accused? Perhaps you would think the judges or police would have good evidence to contradict the criminal. Well there 's a law, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that the accused is the only logical person who could have done the crime even if hard evidence is lacking. On January 13, 1999 Hae Min Lee a senior at Woodlawn high school had disappeared. she was suppose to pick up her cousin after school but never showed up.
Mariam. Al-Jerman R V ABRAHAM Summary kiesha Weippeart a 6 year old girl who lived with her mother kristi Abraham and her stepfather robert smith in their western sydney home of Mount Druitt. On the 1st of august 2010 kiesha’s mother kristi Abraham made a phone call to police to report that her daughter kiesha had gone missing. The police then set out a larger scale search to take place in order to look for kristi Abrahams daughter.kristi Abraham and her defacto partner Robert Smith both were reported saying to police constantly that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the involvement in kiesha's disappearance.
The Prosecution presented compelling evidence against Adnan, more robust than the defendant's evidence. Jay's
In 1692 The Salem Witch Trials started, it was a time when the Puritans, people who were strict to the bible, believed that there were witches living among them trying to taint their society. This ended quickly because the court concluded that the Witch Trials were a mistake after 200 people had been accused of witchcraft while 20 were executed. A long period of time after this, shortly after the end of WW2, in 1947, The Second Red Scare occured in America during the Cold War. This was a fear the Americans had for communists from Russia. The Americans feared communism because it did not allow private owned businesses or practicing religious acts.
This shows that evidence is an important role in pleading someone guilty. When you convict someone of a crime, make sure you know the evidence and information on the case before sentencing
(Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) The outcome of a just trial and its verdict, is based on proof of evidence, which ensures what 's best for the
Title: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’ Name: Prerna Singh Roll No.: 13110082 Word Count: The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up.
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.”
Criminology is the wider area that is used to evaluate the context of crime. The scientific study of criminals and crime is used for evaluating the basis and reasons of crime done by people. It makes use of different theories and school of thought in order to analyse the reasons behind criminal activities. The main purpose of this paper is to consider one criminology theory or school of thought. The criminology theory that is used for analysing the requirements of this paper is rational choice theory.
Compelling Evidence In today’s society, high-tech gadgets and the media have given the impression the essential necessity for forensic evidence in order to convict. Once in a while, cases like the Laci Peterson murder come along with little forensic evidence but a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and motive. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the forensic evidence discovered that led to the conviction and death sentencing of Laci’s husband, Scott Peterson.
The prosecution bears the legal burden to prove the guilt of defendant beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases whereby the defendant bears the evidential burden
