Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
It is difficult to hold prosecutors accountable for acts of misconduct. Since prosecutors are often viewed as the “good guys” by the public, many times unethical, as well as illegal acts will be tolerated by the courts and criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutorial misconduct is considered any action taken by the prosecutor in a criminal case that is against the law and/or unethical. Prosecutorial evidence can be anything from harassing witnesses on the stand, pressing unfounded charges against defendants, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, up to taking bribes. Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place.
While it can be hard to understand why someone would falsely confess to a crime, psychological research has provided some answers and DNA exonerations have proven that the problem is more widespread than many people think. In approximately 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made false confessions, admissions or statements to law enforcement officials. In some false confession cases, details of the crime are inadvertently communicated to a suspect by police during questioning. Later, when a suspect knows these details, the police take the knowledge as evidence of guilt. Often, threats or promises are made to the suspect off camera and then the camera is turned on for a false confession.
What are the problems with non-interrogatory forms of evidence? Choose two forms of non-interrogatory evidence to discuss. Having enough evidence is key in charging, prosecution and finally conviction of criminals, unfortunately most cases result in the police needing and wanting more evidence. Due to insufficient evidence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not be pursued cases further, even if the police believe they have the right suspect. However there are other types of evidence collection apart from that of questioning, which falls under the title of non-interrogatory forms of evidence such as surveillance and scientific evidence.
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
(Standard of proof. n.d.) In a criminal case the state must prove that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and has fulfilled each part of the statutory definition of the crime. An example of a criminal case would be first degree murder, because it contains the three basic elements of a crime: willfulness, deliberation and premeditation. However the standard of proof in a civil case is proven by lower standards of
In the last case they would not only be perverting the course of justice but could also incriminate an innocent person. It is important to appreciate how much notice the average person takes of a situation and how accurately they remember and interpret the facts. This report will involve an in-depth investigation into each of the issues mentioned previously. It will reach a conclusion as to whether or not eye-witness testimony should be abolished completely or is still a crucial part of the criminal justice
This is seen in the statement “… the rules of evidence are considerably more strict [than the inquisitorial system].” This shows that the evidence that will be accepted is of reasonable quality and that it will less likely be made up. The burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the prosecution. The standard that guilt must be proven is beyond reasonable doubt. This is so that there is less chance of an innocent person being convicted. The statement, “No matter how strong the prosecution’s evidence may be, if the magistrate or the jury has any reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted” proves that there should be no doubt when convicting a person.
Eyewitness Testimony By: Victoria Negron PSY 101-01 Eye witness testimonies form the bedrock of most judicial processes around the world. They make a solid impression on a jury, which has the exclusive role of ascertaining the credibility and veracity of the testimonies and make a verdict based on the truth they hold. This is because perjury is criminal and can subvert the integrity of a trial. Recognizing how fallible witness memories are, is paramount for those involved in the judicial process since trials circulate around factual determinations of whom to believe. The human memory has a propensity to recall erroneous events and even details that did not happen.