Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 00:01, 4 December 2015
, 4 December 2015no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
Hearsay: | Hearsay: | ||
:::Witnesses are expected to tell the court what they personally observed, heard or did. Hearsay is a common objection that arises because witnesses are often told things by other persons about the event. Hearsay is presumptively inadmissible if the purpose of introducing the hearsay is to have the trier of fact accept the truth of what the witness heard another person say. The Hearsay rule has a number of exceptions (See Below for more information about Hearsay objections). | :::Witnesses are expected to tell the court what they personally observed, heard or did. Hearsay is a common objection that arises because witnesses are often told things by other persons about the event. Hearsay is presumptively inadmissible if the purpose of introducing the hearsay is to have the trier of fact accept the truth of what the witness heard another person say. The Hearsay rule has a number of exceptions (See Below for more information about Hearsay objections). | ||
Speculation: | |||
:::When we witness behavior in everyday life we often reach conclusions regarding why we think that other person was behaving in that manner. Witnesses are expected to tell the court what they saw a person say and do and not go on to speculate as to why they think that person did what they did. For example if you see someone jumping up and down and swatting at the air you may speculate that they are being bothered by an insect. Such speculation is not proper evidence unless you also saw or heard the insect. | |||
Opinions from Non-Experts: | |||
:::As a rule, witnesses should not make any inferences or state their opinion about what that evidence proves in their testimony, for example "I think Steve was going grocery shopping because I saw him with an empty fabric grocery bag." Instead the witness should simply state "I saw Steve and in his hands he was holding an empty fabric grocery bag." Conclusions drawn from what is seen or heard is for the trier of fact to draw not the witness to opine. | |||
=== 4. ''Voir Dires'' === | |||
A ''Voir Dire'' is usually referred to a "trial within a trial". It is usually held during the Crown's case in order to determine the admissibility of evidence. For example, ''Voir Dires'' can be held to determine whether a confession is voluntary and admissible or whether it should be excluded under section 24(2) of the ''Charter''. If the evidence heard in the ''Voir Dire'' is deemed to be admissible, counsel can agree not to repeat the evidence and the ''Voir Dire'' will form part of the evidence at trial. | |||
Two very common ''Voir Dires'' are a challenge to the admissibility of items seized in a search and a challenge to the admissibility accused confession to the police. | |||
If there are grounds to challenge a search Crown Counsel must be alerted to the fact that defence counsel will be challenging the admission of that item into evidence with sufficient detail to put Crown on notice as to the nature of that challenge (typically an alleged breach of section 8 of the ''Charter''). | |||
If Crown is seeking to enter a confession into evidence that was given to the police (or other person in authority) Crown Counsel must first establish that the confession was voluntary in a ''Voir Dire''. It is common practice that any alleged breaches of section 10 (i.e. accused not provided with access to counsel prior to his interrogation) are dealt with at the same time as Crown Counsel’s Voir Dire on voluntariness. | |||
If an accused testifies at a ''Voir Dire'', he or she can only be cross-examined on the issuesraised in the ''Voir Dire''. | |||
=== 5. Directed verdict/ no evidence motion === | |||
In all criminal cases, it is the Crown’s obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: | |||