Criminology AC2.4 (45 minute, 10 marks}
How evidence has influenced the outcome of a trial and their impact.
Physical Evidence
• Jurors oath 'I swear by almighty god that I will faithfully try the defendan t & give a true
verdict according to the evidence'
• This essentially means evidence should be the primary, most significant influence on the
verdict.
• That is not always the case though, jurors choose how heavy a certain piece of evidence is
and whether its weight is enough to confirm a suspects guilt
• In the case of Jeremy Bamber, evidence alone does not purely point to Jeremy as the killer.
• Evidence was not handled correctly and was even criticized by the Judge during court.
• Detective inspector Ronald Cooke handled the rifle without gloves, and it was not processed
as evidence for weeks.
e • The strength of the evidence deteriorat es over time even with preservat ion; it can be
questiona ble on how they managed to come to a guilty conviction .
• CPS decide whether there is a realistic prospect of a successful prosecutio n.
• The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
• The Amanda Knox case fell because the defence only had to counterac t what the
prosecutio n had said.
• For example, prosecutio n used the bra strap as evidence but the defence responded with
the fact it was found 46 days later, making it inadmissible.
• Unlike testimonia l evidence, it is harder to lie about.
• It can be used as an empirical proof of aspects of a case.
• Without the jurors weighing a lot into physical evidence, it is unlikely we would have gotten
e the first convictions of fingerprin t evidence, Albert & Alfred Stratten.
• Jurors must interpret & decide the weight of the evidence they hear.
• Any doubt and the defendan t should be found not guilty.
• In many cases, DNA evidence such as fingerprin ts and bloodstains are crucial for a
conviction.
• However just because it is there does not mean the suspect is guilty.
• This best describes the case of Adam Scott, he was wrongfully convicted of rape due to the
human error of cross contamina tion .
, Witnesses
• Both defence & prosecution are able to call a witness
• Witness' are usually expected to appear in person
• Vulnerable witnesses are able to provide evidence through live video links, recordings or
behind a screen
• Where evidence is agreed by both parties, it can be given via written statement
• Prosecution present witness= examination in chief
• Defence counteract this= cross examination
• They can then be re-examined
• The jury has full power on how they interpret & the weight of what they say
•
•
Witnesses are beneficial
They were there
e
• In the Steven Lawrence case, his friend Dwayne witnessed everything & was able to identify
who murdered Lawrence.
• Can positively ID a suspect and give clear accounts of what happened
• If evidence given is compelling & truthful, it could sway the outcome of a case
• If evidence is not truthful, it could sway the case
• In the case of Donald Sarpy, Franky Carrillo was wrongfully convicted after the witnesses lied
and said it was him
• Witnesses did not know it was him, they were a part of a rival gang & felt intimidated by
Lieutenant Ditch who had allegedly pointed out Franky for the witnesses.
•
•
Witness evidence is not always accurate
Weapon focus can trigger fight or flight, meaning memory of the event may be hazy. e
• In the case of Pete Williams, he served 21 years after being misidentified by a victim.
• Memory becomes accurate overtime too, 70% of 352 wrongful convictions were on the
basis of DNA/eyewitness testimonies.
• There are no corroborations/background checks of witnesses
• There is a risk of them lying/being discredited by the jury
• In the Damilola case, Bromley was the only witness and had lied and was completely
unreliable in court. Her testimony was deemed inadmissible
• Jury can also be influenced by the witness giving the evidence
• Brodsky et al found that jurors can be prejudiced towards witnesses.
How evidence has influenced the outcome of a trial and their impact.
Physical Evidence
• Jurors oath 'I swear by almighty god that I will faithfully try the defendan t & give a true
verdict according to the evidence'
• This essentially means evidence should be the primary, most significant influence on the
verdict.
• That is not always the case though, jurors choose how heavy a certain piece of evidence is
and whether its weight is enough to confirm a suspects guilt
• In the case of Jeremy Bamber, evidence alone does not purely point to Jeremy as the killer.
• Evidence was not handled correctly and was even criticized by the Judge during court.
• Detective inspector Ronald Cooke handled the rifle without gloves, and it was not processed
as evidence for weeks.
e • The strength of the evidence deteriorat es over time even with preservat ion; it can be
questiona ble on how they managed to come to a guilty conviction .
• CPS decide whether there is a realistic prospect of a successful prosecutio n.
• The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
• The Amanda Knox case fell because the defence only had to counterac t what the
prosecutio n had said.
• For example, prosecutio n used the bra strap as evidence but the defence responded with
the fact it was found 46 days later, making it inadmissible.
• Unlike testimonia l evidence, it is harder to lie about.
• It can be used as an empirical proof of aspects of a case.
• Without the jurors weighing a lot into physical evidence, it is unlikely we would have gotten
e the first convictions of fingerprin t evidence, Albert & Alfred Stratten.
• Jurors must interpret & decide the weight of the evidence they hear.
• Any doubt and the defendan t should be found not guilty.
• In many cases, DNA evidence such as fingerprin ts and bloodstains are crucial for a
conviction.
• However just because it is there does not mean the suspect is guilty.
• This best describes the case of Adam Scott, he was wrongfully convicted of rape due to the
human error of cross contamina tion .
, Witnesses
• Both defence & prosecution are able to call a witness
• Witness' are usually expected to appear in person
• Vulnerable witnesses are able to provide evidence through live video links, recordings or
behind a screen
• Where evidence is agreed by both parties, it can be given via written statement
• Prosecution present witness= examination in chief
• Defence counteract this= cross examination
• They can then be re-examined
• The jury has full power on how they interpret & the weight of what they say
•
•
Witnesses are beneficial
They were there
e
• In the Steven Lawrence case, his friend Dwayne witnessed everything & was able to identify
who murdered Lawrence.
• Can positively ID a suspect and give clear accounts of what happened
• If evidence given is compelling & truthful, it could sway the outcome of a case
• If evidence is not truthful, it could sway the case
• In the case of Donald Sarpy, Franky Carrillo was wrongfully convicted after the witnesses lied
and said it was him
• Witnesses did not know it was him, they were a part of a rival gang & felt intimidated by
Lieutenant Ditch who had allegedly pointed out Franky for the witnesses.
•
•
Witness evidence is not always accurate
Weapon focus can trigger fight or flight, meaning memory of the event may be hazy. e
• In the case of Pete Williams, he served 21 years after being misidentified by a victim.
• Memory becomes accurate overtime too, 70% of 352 wrongful convictions were on the
basis of DNA/eyewitness testimonies.
• There are no corroborations/background checks of witnesses
• There is a risk of them lying/being discredited by the jury
• In the Damilola case, Bromley was the only witness and had lied and was completely
unreliable in court. Her testimony was deemed inadmissible
• Jury can also be influenced by the witness giving the evidence
• Brodsky et al found that jurors can be prejudiced towards witnesses.
