Trial Judge Credibility

Eyewitness accounts play a huge role in general in trials and verdicts, but may be unreliable many times, with certain views placed on evidence provided by children. Unreliability may arise from not being able to recount the identity of the accused, the actions and speech occurring during that time, the relationship of individuals towards the person in question, and many

Witnesses are important, yes, but sometimes they do lie even under oath. The court might have had evidence but it was not stated in this

Just like the evidence provided by the witnesses, there is no way to tell what is the truth, and what is a lie masquerading as the

When it comes to hearing or speaking the truth do you believe it can help you or destroy you ? The author , Reginald Rose , he is showing me that when it comes to a trial it 's the truth that matters, however, not everyone will feel the same some care about the truth and some don 't. The people who are not truthful are the ones who don 't care about anything or anyone. Therefore, During the trial, they discuss what had happened from the murder some point out the evidence (Rose 15) juror 8 explains the el tracks and how the women across the street couldn 't have seen the body fall with the passing of the el Tracks.

Facts Angelique Lavallee killed her common law partner, Kevin Rust, by shooting him in the back of the head late one night after a party at their home. Lavallee was frequently a victim of physical abuse in the relationship, defining her as a battered woman. She made several trips to the hospital for injuries, such as bruises, fractured nose, black eye and multiple contusions, excused by unbelievable reasons. Witnesses testified to seeing and hearing the abuse committed by Rust onto Lavallee prior times to the party as well as at the party that evening. The shooting occurred subsequent to an argument that Lavallee and the deceased had been having in the upper level of the home, after Rust had reportedly told Lavallee to kill him or he would

In the book “Picking Cotton”, the former Burlington Police Chief Mike Gauldin, who was the lead detective on Jennifer’s case, was certainly sure that Ronald Cotton was the guy he was looking for after Jennifer picked him twice (Jennifer, Ronald, Erin 80); also, on the McCallum’s case, the polices also chose to trust eyewitnesses when they did not have enough physical evidences. Furthermore, judges can be wrong sometime. Wise and Safer, who are authors of the report “ what US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony”, surveyed 160 U.S. judges to determine how much they know about eyewitness testimony on a small test( Wise, Safer, 427-432). However, the survey responds the average judges in the U.S. only 55% correct within 14 questions (Wise, Safer, 431-432). Moreover, most of the judges who were surveyed did not know key facts about eyewitness testimony.

After investigators begun to suspect arson was in play, the testimonies turned into accusations and assumption of Willingham’s guilt. David Grann wrote, “Dozens of studies have shown that witnesses’ memories of events often change when they are supplied with new contextual information”, suggesting that after a certain period of time into an investigation, all testimonies should be taken with little confidence (Grann, “Trial by Fire”). If the witnesses and testimonies were taken from individuals who know nothing about the

Jay has been caught lying multiple times. He has told lies from the very beginning. However, the police decide to trust him and let his testimony be the only real evidence in this case. There are four factors you need to check to make sure a witness’s testimony is a good and credible to use: Inherent Credibility, Bias or Interest, Inconsistent Statements, and Corroboration by Other Evidence.(Simpson) Inherent credibility is a witness’s general truthfulness.

Megan Reese Argumentation and Persuasion Paper III Why O.J Got Away with Murder: A Murray Ogborn Application Physical evidence, DNA proof, and a violent past history could seal the fate of OJ Simpson in the controversial murder trial of his wife Nicole Brown. Although so much damming evidence pointed that he was the murderer, on October 3rd 1995 a jury reached the verdict of not guilty. How does a murderer get away with murder when there is a vast amount of scientific evidence and testimonials presented to a jury? Murray Ogborn, a redound trial lawyer, would argue that the District Attorney (D.A) did not tell the right story, and thus the jury could not remember or relate to all the factual evidence presented during the 9

The accusers are lying to the court to cover up what they did. If the accusers would have told the truth in the first place, little to no accusations would have taken place. The accusers lack of being moral causes more than a

They have told you the true story of what happened that fateful night on June 17, 2016. Their testimonies show you that the defendant was not helpless and that she had many opportunities to leave her husband. In addition, their testimonies showed you that the defendant knowingly and premeditatedly murdered her unconscious husband. Unlike the defense, the prosecution and its witnesses have no gain by lying to

When reviewing the issues associated with the criminal justice system in the United States, wrongful convictions are becoming a serious one that society as a whole needs to be aware of. While there are a countless factors that can contribute to a wrongful conviction, there are five distinct ones that are the leading causes in wrongful convictions: the adversarial process, Eyewitness identification, misconduct and errors regarding forensic evidence, interrogations and confessions, and jailhouse snitches/informants. In relation to wrongful convictions, the adversarial system places more emphasis on the process rather than truth finding, meaning an individual can usually only appeal if there is an issue regarding the process; if someone is wrongfully

Today, modern standards require the burden of proof be brought forth by the plaintiff, or prosecution in criminal cases. This means that the accused no longer has to prove they did not commit the crime, but the prosecution has to prove that all the evidence proves the accused did in fact commit the crime in question. Circumstantial evidence is not enough, but physical evidence, or forensic evidence is now required in modern courts for a conviction. Additionally, the modern standard when considering evidence, and for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The witnesses are motivated by fear, as seen in Brigg’s, King’s lawyer, question to them, saying, “You were afraid and you would have said anything” (Meyers, 37). The witnesses themselves would admit to this. Bolden stated that “I knew that the people got killed, and was thinking of trading what I knew for some slack” (Meyers, 48). When someone is afraid, they are willing to say anything to get out of trouble. Both witnesses were afraid of going to or staying in jail.

Stuttering or not answering a question are all ways that can prove guilt. People who are lying often answer slowly to think about their response to make sure it all adds up. Mayella was asked, “Do you remember Bob beating you about the face?” (Lee 246) to which she gave no response. The defendant was also asked, “Then why did the other children hear you?