Criminology Unit 3 AC 2.4 Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal
cases (10 marks)
Evidence
Evidence in a trial should have the main impact on the outcome. Therefore, each jury
member takes an oath/affirmation traditionally of: ‘I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully
try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence’. The jury/magistrates
must consider all the physical and testimonial evidence of witnesses presented in court, and
only this evidence. Then it is up them to attach whatever weight they consider appropriate to
each piece of evidence. In criminal trials, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. The
prosecution has the burden of proof (a law in England and Wales) of having to prove their
guilt ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ whilst the defence has to prove that the prosecutions
arguments are insufficient for a conviction, through cross-examining the prosecutions
witnesses on their evidence and presenting evidence of their own. If the jury has any doubt
about the verdict there must be an acquittal. Therefore, if the evidence is insufficient or
flawed, there is a high chance of the jury passing a non-guilty verdict.
Witnesses
Witnesses are people who have seen a crime take place, they may be able to provide details
of the incident such as what happened or what the perpetrator looked like. Both the
prosecution and the defence are entitled to call witnesses in support of their case. If
witnesses evidence can be agreed and is not in dispute, it can be read out in court in the
form of a statement. This prevents the witnesses from having to attend the court and give
evidence. However, if the witness evidence is contested, the witness must appear in court to
give their side of the story (unless the witness is vulnerable, intimidated, or their identity
cannot be revealed), which is called examination-in-chief. Witnesses can also be crossed-
examined. It is then up to the jury to decide how much reliance/weight is placed on their
testimonies so the quality of a witnesses’ evidence can determine the outcome of a trial. So,
if the witness is believable, this could influence the jury towards whichever side the witness
represents. Similarly, if the witness appears to be unreliable, they may negatively affect the
outcome of a case. However, the jury isn’t just influenced by the actual content of the
evidence that the witness gives, but also by the witness who gives it, and with this there is a
danger of stereotyping. Brodsky et al found that the jurors can be prejudiced towards
witnesses, with factors such as their likeability and confidence affecting how much weight
they give their evidence. Jurors may not believe witnesses who are truthful providing valid
evidence on the basis of their characteristics (these could include the witnesses: gender,
ethnicity, class, age, appearance, demeanour, accent or personality), this could lead to
miscarriages of justice, with innocent people being convicted. Eyewitness and their
testimonies are also often trusted by juries; however, their evidence isn’t always accurate as
psychologists have shown that their memory can be highly inaccurate. The Innocent Project
discovered that eye-witness misidentification contributed to the conviction of an innocent
person in nearly 70% of 35.2 wrongful convictions that were later reversed on the basis of
DNA evidence. For example, the case of Ronald Cotton, where in July 1984 a man broke
into Jennifer Thompson-Cannio’s apartment and sexually assaulted her. Cotton was
arrested and charged based on the basis of Jennifer choosing him out of a photo line-up. On
June 30, 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released from prison, after he
had served 10.5 years in prison.
Experts
Expert witnesses are people with specialist knowledge who give evidence during a trial. For
example, pathologists and forensic scientists. Their duty is to help the court to achieve the
cases (10 marks)
Evidence
Evidence in a trial should have the main impact on the outcome. Therefore, each jury
member takes an oath/affirmation traditionally of: ‘I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully
try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence’. The jury/magistrates
must consider all the physical and testimonial evidence of witnesses presented in court, and
only this evidence. Then it is up them to attach whatever weight they consider appropriate to
each piece of evidence. In criminal trials, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. The
prosecution has the burden of proof (a law in England and Wales) of having to prove their
guilt ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ whilst the defence has to prove that the prosecutions
arguments are insufficient for a conviction, through cross-examining the prosecutions
witnesses on their evidence and presenting evidence of their own. If the jury has any doubt
about the verdict there must be an acquittal. Therefore, if the evidence is insufficient or
flawed, there is a high chance of the jury passing a non-guilty verdict.
Witnesses
Witnesses are people who have seen a crime take place, they may be able to provide details
of the incident such as what happened or what the perpetrator looked like. Both the
prosecution and the defence are entitled to call witnesses in support of their case. If
witnesses evidence can be agreed and is not in dispute, it can be read out in court in the
form of a statement. This prevents the witnesses from having to attend the court and give
evidence. However, if the witness evidence is contested, the witness must appear in court to
give their side of the story (unless the witness is vulnerable, intimidated, or their identity
cannot be revealed), which is called examination-in-chief. Witnesses can also be crossed-
examined. It is then up to the jury to decide how much reliance/weight is placed on their
testimonies so the quality of a witnesses’ evidence can determine the outcome of a trial. So,
if the witness is believable, this could influence the jury towards whichever side the witness
represents. Similarly, if the witness appears to be unreliable, they may negatively affect the
outcome of a case. However, the jury isn’t just influenced by the actual content of the
evidence that the witness gives, but also by the witness who gives it, and with this there is a
danger of stereotyping. Brodsky et al found that the jurors can be prejudiced towards
witnesses, with factors such as their likeability and confidence affecting how much weight
they give their evidence. Jurors may not believe witnesses who are truthful providing valid
evidence on the basis of their characteristics (these could include the witnesses: gender,
ethnicity, class, age, appearance, demeanour, accent or personality), this could lead to
miscarriages of justice, with innocent people being convicted. Eyewitness and their
testimonies are also often trusted by juries; however, their evidence isn’t always accurate as
psychologists have shown that their memory can be highly inaccurate. The Innocent Project
discovered that eye-witness misidentification contributed to the conviction of an innocent
person in nearly 70% of 35.2 wrongful convictions that were later reversed on the basis of
DNA evidence. For example, the case of Ronald Cotton, where in July 1984 a man broke
into Jennifer Thompson-Cannio’s apartment and sexually assaulted her. Cotton was
arrested and charged based on the basis of Jennifer choosing him out of a photo line-up. On
June 30, 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released from prison, after he
had served 10.5 years in prison.
Experts
Expert witnesses are people with specialist knowledge who give evidence during a trial. For
example, pathologists and forensic scientists. Their duty is to help the court to achieve the
