Unit 3 3.1 miss johannes
Examine information for validity
Evidence
The prosecution and defence will present evidence in a criminal trial and it is up to the jury/
magistrates to decide how valid that evidence is in reaching their verdict.
Evidence is required to be:
● Admissible- E.g hearsay evidence/confessions obtained by threats will not be valid in
the eyes of the court.
● Reliable- Is the evidence accurate: is a witness dishonest/ of bad character. Is a
document authentic/forged.
● Credible- Is the evidence believable, given the circumstances? Even if the witness is
honest, could they really have seen what they claimed to have seen?
The fact that the prosecution’s evidence in court has to first convince the CPS gives some
indication that it may be valid, but this is not guaranteed. E.g the defence may be able to
demonstrate shortcomings or inconsistencies in a witnesses testimony during cross-
examination.
Eyewitness testimony
Although juries tend to give a lot of weight to eye-witness testimony, it is not always valid. Many
convictions based on evidence from EWT have been overturned when more accurate & reliable
evidence has come to light, E.g DNA.
Research by psychologists E.g, Loftus et al shows that witnesses memory and the evidence
they give can be affected by many factors such as:
● The time when the event took place
● Whether they disclosed what they saw with other people
● How long ago they witnessed it
● The way questions about the event are worded in court
All this suggests that eye witness evidence may lack validity. E.g, if the event took place a long
time before the trial, the info lacks currency and recall becomes less accurate over time.
Likewise, the circumstance in which the memory was formed can undermine validity. E.g Loftus
et al found that where a weapon was involved, ‘weapon focus’ by witnesses meant that they did
not form a detailed memory of other aspects, such as a good description of the offender.
Evidence from experts
In complex technical cases, the verdict often hinges on the evidence of an expert such as
medical specialists or forensic scientists. By definition, the expert is supposed to know more
about a particular subject than either the legal professionals or laypeople e.g the jurors.
As a result, the evidence of expert witnesses has a special status: unlike other witnesses, they
are entitled to give their own opinion as experts on the matter in hand. And jurors may find the
expert's opinion especially credible and give it great weight when reaching a verdict.
, Miscarriages of justice
Relying on expert witnesses carries the risk of a misscarriage of justice if their
evidence is inaccurate, or if they pass off what is merely an opinion as a scientific
fact.
E.g Sally Clark,Donna Anthony & Angela Cannings were all convicted of killing
their children and the strength of expert evidence from Sir Roy Meadow. He
inaccurately told the court in each case that there was only a 1 in 73 million
chance of two cot deaths occurring in the same family.
Evidence from experts who are biased or incompetent can also undermine the
validity of information. E.g the forensic scientist Dr Frank
Skuse was involved in a number of miscarriages of justice
involving defendants charged with IRA terrorism offences,
including the birmingham six who were wrongly convicted of
bombing two birmingham pubs in 1974. Skuse had
continuously changed his story on when the six’s samples
were taken and had also told the court that in his opinion they
were the perpetrators despite them actually being innocent.
Forensic evidence
Expert testimony often involves interpreting forensic evidence e.g DNA is
unique to them and can therefore provide highly valid info about the
suspect/victim, it can be contaminated and lead to someone being
accused of a crime they did not commit,as in the case of adam scott.
Adam scott was accused of rape due to a forensic error in a forensics lab,
despite scott being no where near the scene of the crime when it
happened.
Trial transcripts
A trial transcript is a complete and exact written record every word spoken in court by the
judge,lawyers,witnesses and defendant.
Originally transcripts were made by court stenographers using a type of shorthand and later
using special stenotype machines. Nowadays courts record proceedings digitally instead using
DARTS (digital audio recording transcription and storage system).
Anyone can apply for a transcript of a court hearing if the hearing was recorded, but the court
can refuse to provide one, e.g if the hearing was confidential. Crown court hearings are always
recorded, whereas magistrates court hearings are never recorded, there is usually a fee for the
transcript.
Examine information for validity
Evidence
The prosecution and defence will present evidence in a criminal trial and it is up to the jury/
magistrates to decide how valid that evidence is in reaching their verdict.
Evidence is required to be:
● Admissible- E.g hearsay evidence/confessions obtained by threats will not be valid in
the eyes of the court.
● Reliable- Is the evidence accurate: is a witness dishonest/ of bad character. Is a
document authentic/forged.
● Credible- Is the evidence believable, given the circumstances? Even if the witness is
honest, could they really have seen what they claimed to have seen?
The fact that the prosecution’s evidence in court has to first convince the CPS gives some
indication that it may be valid, but this is not guaranteed. E.g the defence may be able to
demonstrate shortcomings or inconsistencies in a witnesses testimony during cross-
examination.
Eyewitness testimony
Although juries tend to give a lot of weight to eye-witness testimony, it is not always valid. Many
convictions based on evidence from EWT have been overturned when more accurate & reliable
evidence has come to light, E.g DNA.
Research by psychologists E.g, Loftus et al shows that witnesses memory and the evidence
they give can be affected by many factors such as:
● The time when the event took place
● Whether they disclosed what they saw with other people
● How long ago they witnessed it
● The way questions about the event are worded in court
All this suggests that eye witness evidence may lack validity. E.g, if the event took place a long
time before the trial, the info lacks currency and recall becomes less accurate over time.
Likewise, the circumstance in which the memory was formed can undermine validity. E.g Loftus
et al found that where a weapon was involved, ‘weapon focus’ by witnesses meant that they did
not form a detailed memory of other aspects, such as a good description of the offender.
Evidence from experts
In complex technical cases, the verdict often hinges on the evidence of an expert such as
medical specialists or forensic scientists. By definition, the expert is supposed to know more
about a particular subject than either the legal professionals or laypeople e.g the jurors.
As a result, the evidence of expert witnesses has a special status: unlike other witnesses, they
are entitled to give their own opinion as experts on the matter in hand. And jurors may find the
expert's opinion especially credible and give it great weight when reaching a verdict.
, Miscarriages of justice
Relying on expert witnesses carries the risk of a misscarriage of justice if their
evidence is inaccurate, or if they pass off what is merely an opinion as a scientific
fact.
E.g Sally Clark,Donna Anthony & Angela Cannings were all convicted of killing
their children and the strength of expert evidence from Sir Roy Meadow. He
inaccurately told the court in each case that there was only a 1 in 73 million
chance of two cot deaths occurring in the same family.
Evidence from experts who are biased or incompetent can also undermine the
validity of information. E.g the forensic scientist Dr Frank
Skuse was involved in a number of miscarriages of justice
involving defendants charged with IRA terrorism offences,
including the birmingham six who were wrongly convicted of
bombing two birmingham pubs in 1974. Skuse had
continuously changed his story on when the six’s samples
were taken and had also told the court that in his opinion they
were the perpetrators despite them actually being innocent.
Forensic evidence
Expert testimony often involves interpreting forensic evidence e.g DNA is
unique to them and can therefore provide highly valid info about the
suspect/victim, it can be contaminated and lead to someone being
accused of a crime they did not commit,as in the case of adam scott.
Adam scott was accused of rape due to a forensic error in a forensics lab,
despite scott being no where near the scene of the crime when it
happened.
Trial transcripts
A trial transcript is a complete and exact written record every word spoken in court by the
judge,lawyers,witnesses and defendant.
Originally transcripts were made by court stenographers using a type of shorthand and later
using special stenotype machines. Nowadays courts record proceedings digitally instead using
DARTS (digital audio recording transcription and storage system).
Anyone can apply for a transcript of a court hearing if the hearing was recorded, but the court
can refuse to provide one, e.g if the hearing was confidential. Crown court hearings are always
recorded, whereas magistrates court hearings are never recorded, there is usually a fee for the
transcript.
