R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 v. Williams was a criminal case, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the accused appealed the decision of; Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Facts: Victor Daniel Williams is an aboriginal man who pleaded not guilty but was charged via trial by judge and jury for the robbery of a pizza parlour in October, 1993. in Victoria BC. His defence was that another aboriginal had committed the crime. Williams challenged the jury on the basis of s.638 of the criminal code “an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that.. a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused” as they had established significant amounts of prejudice against aboriginals, which was dismissed in the Court Of Appeal, leading to his conviction. Issue(s) of Appeal: “Whether or not Williams has the right to challenge jurors …show more content…
Williams was granted the right to challenge for cause in his first trial because s.638 of the code by: Hutchison J. who granted The Crown a mistrial on the basis of “procedural errors… coupled with the “unfortunate publicity” of the jury selection process.” The accused objected arguing that The Crown was merely attempting to achieve a “reversal of the challenge for cause”. Hutchison J. granted the application of mistrial and replied “that he doubted this would happen, given the case law...” The Second Trial (1994), Mr. Williams's motion allowing him to challenge jurors for cause was rejected by Esson C. J. who acknowledged that there was a possibility that jurors would be biased against Williams, however he still ruled that the general basis would be insufficient in disrupting the assumption of juror impartiality as the “...jury system provides safeguards against such biases” opting for a more cost efficient analysis. Vickers J. who presided at the trial “dismissed a renewed application to challenge potential jurors for cause” which ultimately led to his conviction. The Court Of Appeal
James D. Williams is suspected of involvement in the 1984 triple-murder in Tacoma, Washington, the murder of Rashad Khalifa in 1990 and other terrorist attacks. He used to lead the Colorado Fuqra. Crimes Williams was convicted on October 28, 1993 for Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder, two counts of Racketeering and 2nd Degree Forgery. He failed to show up for sentencing and became a fugitive.
I. QUESTION PRESENTED What is the impact of Mr. Roberts and Ms. Turley holding their new home as joint tenants in a community property state? II. SHORT ANSWER By opting to hold the new home as joint tenants in a community property state, the couple will realize the higher level of creditor protection afforded by a joint tenancy but will lose the significant tax benefits afforded under the community property tax regime.
Legal Citation of the Case R v Lopez [2014] NSWSC 287 (21 March 2014) Overview Carlos Lopez has been found not guilty of the murder his mother, stepfather and brother by reason of mental illness. He was also found not guilty of the two counts of animal cruelty, causing death, against the family’s pet Chihuahuas.
The plurality held that the decision of the deputy registrar to exclude Ms Lyons from juror duty was not unlawful under the A.D.A 1991 and instead vetoed the contention that the disclosure or jury contemplations to an interpreter was lawful. The argument was based on the phrase “perform the functions of a juror” included in Section 4 (3L) of the J.A 1995. Additionally, the plurality also rejected the appellant’s contention that Section 54 (1) of the J.A 1995 extended a grant of leave to an AUSLAN. Section 54 (1) of the J.A only allows for the officer of the court
Holding: "The trial court then concluded that the state had made reasonable efforts to produce the witness and admitted the hearsay. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "more
The Canadian case I selected in which a wrongful conviction occurred was of Robert Baltovich. In 1992 Baltovich was wrongfully convicted of the murder of his girlfriend Elizabeth Bain and he was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for the next 17 years (Innocence Canada, 2016). This case took place in Scarborough, Ontario and Baltovich spent eight years behind bars for a crime he did not do. Baltovich got a retrial and he was finally released on April 22, 2008. Bain’s murder still remains a mystery, her car was found with a bloodstain on the back seat but her body was never discovered.
The following two cases resulted in reversals of the convictions due to lack of counsel, but after this it became evident the Court was trying to draw the line of which trials to reverse. After these two cases, “in 1947 the Court made it plain that in non-capital cases it was sticking to the flexible rule of Betts v. Brady”(Lewis 118). Betts v. Brady helped to pave
In R v. Frieson, Judge Ouellette referred to 5 cases and 2 statutes outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2 statutes from the Constitution Act, and 12 statues from the Criminal Code. The issue with this particular case laid in the fact that Frieson believed the imposition of a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for this offence constituted as cruel and unusual punishment; the defendant was not aware of Mr. Froese’s depression when he sold him both firearms. Despite only having a license to sell non-prohibited firearm ammunition at the time, Friesen cooperated with investigators and was honest about continuing to sell firearms from his store despite not having a license, even after Mr. Froese’s death. Judge Oulette was
This case is about when a man named Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams tried to gain executive clemency from the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the case he was tried for being accused of murder using a shotgun. When Williams was being arrested there was a twelve-gauge shotgun shell found at the crime scene while there was an investigation going on at the Brookhaven motel. This shell was then use against Mr. Williams in the murder trial against him stating that about 5 a.m. on March 11, 1979, he broke into the Brookhaven motel and killed Yen-Yi Yang and his wife who was Tsai-Shai C. Yang who were both immigrants coming from Taiwan. The accusation comes because of the shotgun found in Williams’s possession and he took their cash that
The Federal Trial Court had the same findings as the original Trial Court and the Florida Supreme Court, and so Strickland appealed that too. The Federal Appellate Court took the case and agreed with Strickland that his counsel was not competent in fighting his case. The Court found that Strickland had to show an actual or substantial disadvantage to establish lack of effective counsel and that should he should retire to see if he could meet that standard. The Court reversed the Lower Courts decision and the prosecutor appealed
In the case of the People versus Smith, it struggles with conflicts and balances. The verdict was decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The issue at hand was that the defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, argued that he should be re-sentenced because of the action of the presentence investigation report of his previously expunged juvenile record. The Court of Appeals in Michigan agreed with the defendant and required that Smith is sentenced again. However, The Supreme Court heard the case and reverses the decision stating that Smith did not need to be sentenced again on the basis of the inclusion of his juvenile record alone.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
The trial was more focused on the Butler Act than it was on defending Scopes. Darrow called his first scientist to the stand but the judge did not allow it because it was seen as opinion whether it was from an expert or not. It seemed the trial was over but it was not. The trial proceeded when Bryan was called to the stand. Darrow questioned Bryan hard on the bible and his beliefs.
It can be argued that the jury was not a proper representation of his peers. Along with other factual errors surrounding Dixon’s false conviction,
Describe Topic: R v. Oakes is the most important charter case in Canada. The main reason for it being so important is that it led to the creation of the Oakes test, but also for it being a case concerned with section 11 of the charter and the fact that David Oakes was told to prove himself innocent. The main legal conflict in the case is whether section 1 justifies the fact that he has to prove himself innocent, based on the laws applied in the case. Main Issue to be researched further: Was the “reverse onus” applied on David Oakes lawful under Canadian Law? Legal Issues: 1.