Defense attorney may argue based on two precedents of US Supreme Court - Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) and state that this testimony is irrelevant to the crime itself and is not connected to the facts of the case and also victim’s testimony is unacceptable during death penalty cases. But US Supreme Court overruled these two precedents by its decision on Payne v. Tennessee case (1991). This decision holds that testimony on the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment…
about some things yet he was never subjected to a polygraph test, his involvement in the…
know about. But he did release some edited transcripts of the tapes, trying to get the people off…
In chapter eight, we read about the confrontation clause and the exceptions to the hearsay…
The rhetor uses evidence oriented rational argument in the form of authoritative evidence by quoting President Kennedy to further the point of the separation of church and state. Edward Kennedy cites information from President Kennedy, who gave a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, an address where President Kennedy speaks on the issues of religion. Citing evidence from President Kennedy is the dominant strategy that helps to simplify the issue and adds to the rhetor’s credibility.…
Type your answers to the following questions using complete sentences and correct grammar, spelling, and syntax. Click Save as and save the file with your last name and assignment, e.g.,NR439_Research_Database_Smith. Submit to the Research Database basket in the Dropbox by 11:59 p.m. MT Sunday at the end of Week 4. The guidelines and grading rubric for this assignment may be found in Doc Sharing.…
New York Evidence Law (2006) does not allow prior consistent statements. They can only be used to disprove misassigned motive, as demonstrated by People v. Seit, 86 N.Y.2d 92 (1995) (p. 15).However, New York has made exceptions to such statements when they apply to present impressions (p. 15). Out-of-court identifications made by persons not present is treated as hearsay (p.…
Does all evidences can be used to convict a person? Circumstantial evidence is an indirect evidence that relies on connection with a particular case, but can’t be used as a proving alone. People have different thought of should circumstantial evidence can be use to convict a person. In my opinion, circumstantial evidence should never use for declaration of guilt because of the following reason. First, it is not credible. Second, It does not contain any or non scientific analysis. Last but not least, Because of circumstantial evidence, many innocent people are punished.…
The prosecution must establish the facts and elements of each crime to prove a defendant's guilt. The elements of crime are the basic components of the crime, and the essential features of that crime specified by law or statute. These elements include actus reus, mens rea, and a concurrence of the two. To convict the defendant of a particular crime, the prosecution must establish that each of the required elements are present in the facts to prove criminal liability (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2010). In the case of State v. Stu Dents, the prosecution must establish the facts and elements of the charges for homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, burglary, and crimes related to drugs.…
6. “‘Well, of course law informant should be stopping, searching, and frisk him. Of course they should be keeping an eyes on him, he is a drug felon.’ And we knew we couldn’t put a criminal on the stand because they would be inevitable cross examine in front of a jury about their prior criminal history, their whole credibility would be challenged. So I tried to explain to him ‘I’m sorry, there is just no way I can represent you if you have a criminal record”…
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. This means the subject has the right to counsel before, during, and after questioning. Should the subject request the presence of an attorney, questioning should cease until counsel arrives.…
1. Discuss the underlying reasons for the rapid growth of crime laboratories in the United States since the late 1960s.…
Miranda v. Arizona- Having the right to remain silent during innterogation and questions. Accused of raping a girl.…
Evidence builds the basis of any criminal trial. The judge regulates the evidence that is introduced into court. Evidence can be deemed inadmissible if it was illegally obtained under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), for example, police forcefully acquired the confession out of the suspect. Most evidence is in the form of oral statements – witnesses that are competent, compellable and non-privileged are called to testify. There are many issues regarding the reliability of evidence. Most trials take place a few months after the crime and witnesses are asked to recall information after this substantial amount of time. The witnesses may not remember all the information correctly or forgetting details as to what had occurred.…
Curso de Reglas de Evidencia Derecho Probatorio José Collazo González E. d. D (y) P. h. D.…