People make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life. Nonetheless, the sources that stated the court…
Without evidence that surpasses reasonable doubt, the police strive to collect any evidence to support their belief that Marshall is guilty and they succeed. Marshall does not receive the equal benefit of the…
P. 56(c). While the Court must view inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, “this does not lessen the burden of the non-moving party in any way.” Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, the nonmovant still bears the burden of providing “sufficient evidence” for every element she must prove. Id. (Citing…
Similarly, if the unchallenged testimony will result in an “incorrect perception” in the jury’s mind, evidence of prior charges may be admissible. Reed v. Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Services, No. 05-99-01529-CV, 2002 WL 244488 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 21, 2002, no pet.) (holding that the defendant in a parental rights termination case “opened the door” to prior criminal charges—not convictions—by testifying that a minor’s family had no problem with the illegal…
In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry men, a 19 year old boy is on trial for the murder of his father. 12 jurors hold the fate of his life in their hands, by deciding whether or not he is guilty. They decide this by the use of reasonable doubt, looking at the evidence given for the case, and the witnesses testimonies. The boy is considered a “slum” or to have grown up in the slums ; a very populated area with run-down buildings and people that may have had, or have a financial burden, or don’t have the money to take care of their families and have a “nice” house at the same time. Due to prejudice from some jurors and sympathy from others, and the general diversity between the them, you can put yourself in their positions, and decide whether he is…
b) Decision: Police may only attain evidence available through a legitimate search warrant & other evidence found at the scene of the crime isn’t admissible in the trail. E. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) a) Issue: (Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel) Gideon, was accused of a felony is FL, & requested the assistance of a lawyer. The FL justice system allowed free aid only in cases that were punishable by death; as a result Gideon lost. b) Decision: State courts are required to appoint an attorney for the accused even if she or he cannot afford one. F. Miranda v. Arizona…
In this trial, the question the court is being asked to answer is whether Alex Cooper was responsible for his own injuries. Throughout this trial, the law applied was negligence. Negligence is broken down into four parts: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Due to the nature of this trial as a civil suit, the plaintiff had the burden of proof, meaning the burden to prove by the greater weight of the credible evidence.…
This means that the innocence of the accused person must be proven. In the claim itself, Willingham’s innocence was proven via two major concepts. The first is via the forensic evidence that was present at the scene of the fire. The evidence presented were the reports of Dr. Hurst and the Arson Review Committee that both negated the conclusion that the fire was an arson case, and the conclusion was that no one could have set the fire in the first place. Webb’s testimony during the trial was then refuted, with the use of the reports of Dr. Hurst and the Arson Review Committee as well.…
Privilege is a special right granted to a specific person or group of people. Historically, whites have been more privileged and cannot relate with the mistreatment blacks have suffered through such as, slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws. In “Reasonable Doubt and the Lost Presidential Debate of 2012,” black professor Kiese Laymon hopes to expose and educate white people about the hardships associated with being black through his imitation of a presidential debate.…
In the Supreme Court case, Nelson v. Colorado, the judgment revolves around the constitutionality of the Colorado Exoneration Act. This act stated that monetary fines paid due to conviction charges can only be returned to the exonerated individual if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are innocent of the accused crime. The constitutionality of this law was debated and in question in regards to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. I concur in the recent Supreme Court decision that the Colorado Exoneration Act should be ruled as unconstitutional. I am in assent with this recent decision that the current Colorado law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects United States citizen’s right to a fair trial, undermines the legitimacy and authority of a criminal court proceeding, and also contradicts the precedent established in various courts that…
Without full information an attorney cannot do their job in full. Evidence: Eye witness identification: Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong…
Evidence Interpretation Over the years, there have been several cases that have been resolved with a false guilty plea or cases where a guilty party was not convicted of a crime. There are various elements that play a role in solving cases; evidence is a one of these key elements. Many factors can determine if the evidence submitted before a court of law is accurate such as how the evidence is collected, if proper protocell was followed before the laboratory’s handling of the evidence, and if the evidences was accurately processed by the crime scene laboratory by various forensic scientists. Furthermore, with the advances in technology in today’s society, various pieces of evidence such a DNA analysis have been considered a crucial element…
In conclusion, both an eyewitness and the reasonable person provide standards in the court of law that are used in determining whether to convict a suspect, as demonstrated by the eyewitness in the State v. Hendersen (2011) case. Unfortunately, both standards are based upon subjective perception. For example, human error in memory processing may decrease the accuracy in an eyewitness testimony. Research should be done on individual interpretation as it relates to an eyewitness or the reasonable person in order to prevent any wrongful…
Confirmation bias can be found in many stages of the investigative process. This is when one seeks or interprets evidence in ways that are in favor of existing beliefs, expectations or a hypothesis. (Nickerson, 1998). Confirmation bias can have two ways of going about it in an investigation one way is that you select information based on what your thoughts, or opinions line up with or are biased towards the evidence that is already available (Ask & Granhag, 2005). The issue of confirmation bias is very important because it can happen even in our day to day lives but when it is in the legal system it can be very dangerous to the person that is in the hot seat.…
Deductive reasoning is based on specific evidence in order to prove that an individual is guilty of an offence. Inductive reasoning, also called inductive logic, is reasoning that goes beyond what we actually know in order to make a conclusion. Deductive reasoning is done with actual evidence while inductive reasoning is based on a proposition. The textbook give a great example of inductive reasoning, “All of john Wayne Gacy’s victims found to date were male-so Gacy did not kill females”. It uses information that has been obtained in order to further solve the problem.…