In the State v. Cotton case, empirical evidence was discounted for in the jury’s eyes. Cotton was wrongfully convicted due to the persuasive speech from Jennifer Thompson. Although eyewitness accounts are now discredited, they tend to provide in-depth descriptions that evidence could not explain alone. Eyewitness accounts are ineffective due to our memory. Many people believe that our memory works like a video or tape recorder.
When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system. This can happen and does on occasion (Meyer & Grant, 2003). How can we improve consistency in how prosecutors accept case work? When assessing possible improvements to the consistency of how prosecutors accept case work, there are no simple answers. Putting strict demands on what a prosecutor
Some courts consider statements by co-conspirators not testimonial, so this does not fall under the confrontation clause, which does not give the defendant the right to cross examine the witness. Hearsay exceptions in child abuse cases. Hearsay means an out-of-court statement such as written or oral, that is assertive and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the subject matter of the statement (Gardner & Anderson 2010). The rule is in
In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch. (Lynch, 1998) Most defenses that invoke the exclusionary rule are based on the lack of or improper application of search warrants. Those that support the continued use of the exclusionary rule argue that there must be this line between the police officers that are often emotionally involved in a case, and an impartial third party that can objectively review the evidence. Without this safeguard, citizens would have little protection from overzealous police officers who could search their homes and persons with almost anything serving as probable cause in their opinion. The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures.
Even the most basic, everyday items often fail to be encoded into our memory. When reconstructing their memory of the crime, the eyewitness “unknowingly fills in the gaps in his or her factual memory of the crime based on such factors as the eyewitness’s expectations, attitude, beliefs and knowledge of similar events” (Wise, Fishman and Safer, 2009). This, in turn, produces a testimony that may seem believable and accurate, but does indeed contain many faults and inaccuracies. Another cause of faulty eyewitness testimony is eyewitness bias. Encoding is defined as “the set of mental operations that people perform on sensory information to convert that information into a form that is usable in the brain’s storage systems” (Ciccarelli and White, 2010 pg 214).
Ultimately, the facts and arguments should be examined on both sides so that a decision can be made on whether to keep jury nullification the same or whether it is in the nation’s best interest to change it by either limiting it in some way or abolishing it completely. Jury nullification defined in the legal dictionary, is the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. In simpler terms it is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant because the law is being unfair. It is a very rare situation when a jury nullifies itself. It is said to happen in about three or four percent of criminal cases that go to trial.
Should Juries be used to determine a verdict? Fayaz Aleem Jurors are average people, and average people are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to make a decision that could greatly impact someone's life. Being put on trial by a jury of your peers is the foundation of the judicial system for the United States but, it's wrong. Guilt and pressure that comes from having to make a decision that could affect someone's life is dangerous. Although juries are intended to be fair and balanced, and are in theory supposed to prevent biased, incompetent people having that kind power.
Many words do not have the same meaning now as they did in 1861 and some words are no longer used or have a specialist legal meaning. An example of this is the word 'malicious', as a layman would define the word as meaning evil or wicked, whereas a lawyer would define the word as meaning specific intention or subjective recklessness (Parmenter 1991). Some words and phrases do not describe what they mean, for example, in ABH 'actual' suggests any harm whereas, in fact, it does not include serious harm. 'Bodily' would seem to exclude mental harm, but in Chan Fook (1993) the court included it. All of these reasons have meant that Lawyers and Juries have struggled to understand the complexity or the different offences.
* * 2. What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? * * Cotton and Devilly stress that Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) is not explained properly and research has proven that CISD does not give patients the results needed. * Devilly and Cotton also stated that Critical incident stress management (CISM) is also not properly explained in the treatment of traumatized individuals, which makes the process ineffective (Halgin, 2007). * Mitchell’s opinion is that Devilly and Cotton display a lack of knowledge within the text of CISM because no reference to this literature is stated by the authors.
Such evidence could include scientific testing that was performed by the government, crime scene photographs, or statements given to the police or the prosecutor by witnesses. Sometimes, the prosecutor may not want to share specific evidence with the defendant before the case goes to trial, and the court must decide whether or not the prosecution is right to withhold the evidence from the defense. If there is resistance in the contribution of evidence, it is the defense’s burden to prove that the evidence is pertinent to the preparation of their case. Also, if the prosecution is willing to share their evidence with the defense, the defense must also be willing to provide the prosecution with the defense’s evidence. In the case that they are not willing to collaborate with the prosecution, the defense is not permitted access to the requested evidence.