Prisley Arias
114109956
LW 1156
Legal Writing
Dr. Catherine O'Sullivan
Introduction This case concerns Daphne Robbins, a woman convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for aggravated burglary, based on the key testimony of Mark O'Leary. The homeowner whose house was burglarised. Daphne petitioned this conviction on two grounds, which could be treated as one. First, the process by which Daphne was identified; she argues that she was a suspect in the eyes of Gardai McKay up until Mark identified her, and evidence of the informal identification should not have gone to the jury. Second, the trial judge's charge to the jury about informal identification process was inadequate. Both of these grounds focus on the informal identification process. The precedent case for these issues is The People (DPP) v. Beroket Mekonnen. In my opinion, Daphne will be successful on both grounds.
Ground 1: The Process in which Daphne was Identified Issue
Daphne’s first ground …show more content…
The precedent refers to the case of People v. Rapple, in which Lord Hewart C.J., states “that where a witness, who had previously seen a photograph of her assailant, subsequently gave evidence of identification, the jury should be warned that such evidence may be ‘coloured by [her] having seen the photograph(s).'” As supra,the photograph of Daphne was shown to the witness (Mark) prior to informal identification by the gardai. Unfortunately, the jurors in this case were not warned of the prior identification. None of the specifics were conveyed, only the dangers of eyewitness testimony. Therefore, In cases like such “visual identification evidence must be treated with serious caution and a trial judge is obliged to inform this view.” It will be easy for Daphne to claim that the judge did not adequately cover facts specific to the case, for instances the circumstances in her
114109956
LW 1156
Legal Writing
Dr. Catherine O'Sullivan
Introduction This case concerns Daphne Robbins, a woman convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for aggravated burglary, based on the key testimony of Mark O'Leary. The homeowner whose house was burglarised. Daphne petitioned this conviction on two grounds, which could be treated as one. First, the process by which Daphne was identified; she argues that she was a suspect in the eyes of Gardai McKay up until Mark identified her, and evidence of the informal identification should not have gone to the jury. Second, the trial judge's charge to the jury about informal identification process was inadequate. Both of these grounds focus on the informal identification process. The precedent case for these issues is The People (DPP) v. Beroket Mekonnen. In my opinion, Daphne will be successful on both grounds.
Ground 1: The Process in which Daphne was Identified Issue
Daphne’s first ground …show more content…
The precedent refers to the case of People v. Rapple, in which Lord Hewart C.J., states “that where a witness, who had previously seen a photograph of her assailant, subsequently gave evidence of identification, the jury should be warned that such evidence may be ‘coloured by [her] having seen the photograph(s).'” As supra,the photograph of Daphne was shown to the witness (Mark) prior to informal identification by the gardai. Unfortunately, the jurors in this case were not warned of the prior identification. None of the specifics were conveyed, only the dangers of eyewitness testimony. Therefore, In cases like such “visual identification evidence must be treated with serious caution and a trial judge is obliged to inform this view.” It will be easy for Daphne to claim that the judge did not adequately cover facts specific to the case, for instances the circumstances in her