2.4
Witness
- Witnesses are individuals who have first handedly viewed an offence take place or
have primary evidence based on their observation of the offence.
- Prosecution and Defence can invite witnesses into court to prove their case.
- The witness gives a statement where they will then be approved to come into court
and act as a witness.
- In some cases, if all parties agree, the statement can be read out in court.
- Similarly, if a witness is classed as vulnerable, they may be able to attend via a video
link.
- There are different ways in which witness evidence can be told in court without the
witness physically being there.
- If a witness' testimony is disputed, they must appear in court to present their
account this can be known as examination in chief, during this cross examination
may take place.
- Witnesses are detrimental to the outcome of the case.
- A witness impacts the jury, if the jury believe and sympathise with the witness, this
will often lead the jurors to conclude guilt.
- However, the jury has the right to consider witness testimony with whatever weight
they deem appropriate.
- And clearly the witnesses impact the defendant, a witness could affect if the
defendant walks free or not.
- While witnesses are of great use there are also concerns about the reliability of this
type of source.
- Psychologists said their recollection of an event maybe not accurate due to issues
such as trauma and how it alters your memory.
- The innocence Project discovered that more than 70% of 352 mistaken convictions
that eventually were overturned due to physical evidence and a mistaken
identification following
- a witness who was incorrect, leading to an innocent citizen facing punishment.
- Another issue following witness testimonies is that people often stereotype certain
races or genders,
- this could influence the jury’s opinion of how credible and reliable they think the
witness is.
- For example, Damilola was a 10-year-old boy who was stabbed in Peckham in 2000.
- The Damilola Taylor case relied on a lot of evidence which came from a 14-year-old
girl.
- Due to her lies, the reputation of the CPS \was tarnished due to their failings of
spotting out her obvious lies.
- The 14-year-old denied his attack where she claimed he fell over whilst also taking
offence and getting angry during cross examinations.
- Overall witnesses are very significant during trials, in how they could change a jury’s
verdict as overall there is no reason to not believe their account.
- Witnesses act as evidence when there is no other physical evidence to prove guilt or
not.
, 2.4
Experts
- A professional with specialised expertise knowledge may get called to stand as an
Expert witness in court.
- The outcome of a case can be strongly impacted by their testimony.
- Jurors are likely to believe and get influenced by these testimonies especially if it is
complex and statistical evidence, especially if the 12 individuals lack this detailed
knowledge.
- Individuals with high qualifications, a high status in their field are likely to persuade
the jury.
- However, there can be several concerns when calling in an expert, as some are
better than other.
- Along with this, it’s possible the jury may misunderstand the way complicated and
specialised knowledge is relayed to them.
- The trial of sally Clarke serves as an illustration of how specialists can impact a
verdict.
- Experts have a lot of influence on the way the case concludes.
- They largely impact the defendant’s potential future in that if they are incorrect,
people tend to believe an ‘expert’ and will be swayed by the specialist knowledge
presented.
- Sally was charged with the murder of her two infant sons.
- Roy Meadow, a home office pathologist claimed the likelihood of both children
passing away from SIDS was 1 in 73 million
- when infact the chances were much lower, meaning it was possible that she did not
murder her children.
- Despite his inaccuracy, due to his named title, his evidence was believed, leading to
an unfair verdict.
- Experts play a pivotal role in persuading the jury as everyone always assumes they
are always correct.
- This assumption not only led to the defendant receiving an unfair trial, but also
misleads the jurors.
- Another case being Angela Canning who faced a similar scenario to Sally.
- Angela’s 3 children passed away.
- The same expert, Roy Meadows stated that she had Munchhausen’s syndrome
stated that 1 is a tragedy, 2 is suspicious and 3 is murder.
- He again provided incorrect statistics on SIDS while claiming the babies were healthy
up until they died. However, experts who specialised in SIDS opposed his claim.
- Angela’s family had a history of SIDS. She was later discharged.
- Overall, due to their extensive knowledge and expertise title, people with little to no
knowledge on their subject are likely to believe them, therefore, they contract a lot
of importance throughout the trial as they influence the final verdict.
Witness
- Witnesses are individuals who have first handedly viewed an offence take place or
have primary evidence based on their observation of the offence.
- Prosecution and Defence can invite witnesses into court to prove their case.
- The witness gives a statement where they will then be approved to come into court
and act as a witness.
- In some cases, if all parties agree, the statement can be read out in court.
- Similarly, if a witness is classed as vulnerable, they may be able to attend via a video
link.
- There are different ways in which witness evidence can be told in court without the
witness physically being there.
- If a witness' testimony is disputed, they must appear in court to present their
account this can be known as examination in chief, during this cross examination
may take place.
- Witnesses are detrimental to the outcome of the case.
- A witness impacts the jury, if the jury believe and sympathise with the witness, this
will often lead the jurors to conclude guilt.
- However, the jury has the right to consider witness testimony with whatever weight
they deem appropriate.
- And clearly the witnesses impact the defendant, a witness could affect if the
defendant walks free or not.
- While witnesses are of great use there are also concerns about the reliability of this
type of source.
- Psychologists said their recollection of an event maybe not accurate due to issues
such as trauma and how it alters your memory.
- The innocence Project discovered that more than 70% of 352 mistaken convictions
that eventually were overturned due to physical evidence and a mistaken
identification following
- a witness who was incorrect, leading to an innocent citizen facing punishment.
- Another issue following witness testimonies is that people often stereotype certain
races or genders,
- this could influence the jury’s opinion of how credible and reliable they think the
witness is.
- For example, Damilola was a 10-year-old boy who was stabbed in Peckham in 2000.
- The Damilola Taylor case relied on a lot of evidence which came from a 14-year-old
girl.
- Due to her lies, the reputation of the CPS \was tarnished due to their failings of
spotting out her obvious lies.
- The 14-year-old denied his attack where she claimed he fell over whilst also taking
offence and getting angry during cross examinations.
- Overall witnesses are very significant during trials, in how they could change a jury’s
verdict as overall there is no reason to not believe their account.
- Witnesses act as evidence when there is no other physical evidence to prove guilt or
not.
, 2.4
Experts
- A professional with specialised expertise knowledge may get called to stand as an
Expert witness in court.
- The outcome of a case can be strongly impacted by their testimony.
- Jurors are likely to believe and get influenced by these testimonies especially if it is
complex and statistical evidence, especially if the 12 individuals lack this detailed
knowledge.
- Individuals with high qualifications, a high status in their field are likely to persuade
the jury.
- However, there can be several concerns when calling in an expert, as some are
better than other.
- Along with this, it’s possible the jury may misunderstand the way complicated and
specialised knowledge is relayed to them.
- The trial of sally Clarke serves as an illustration of how specialists can impact a
verdict.
- Experts have a lot of influence on the way the case concludes.
- They largely impact the defendant’s potential future in that if they are incorrect,
people tend to believe an ‘expert’ and will be swayed by the specialist knowledge
presented.
- Sally was charged with the murder of her two infant sons.
- Roy Meadow, a home office pathologist claimed the likelihood of both children
passing away from SIDS was 1 in 73 million
- when infact the chances were much lower, meaning it was possible that she did not
murder her children.
- Despite his inaccuracy, due to his named title, his evidence was believed, leading to
an unfair verdict.
- Experts play a pivotal role in persuading the jury as everyone always assumes they
are always correct.
- This assumption not only led to the defendant receiving an unfair trial, but also
misleads the jurors.
- Another case being Angela Canning who faced a similar scenario to Sally.
- Angela’s 3 children passed away.
- The same expert, Roy Meadows stated that she had Munchhausen’s syndrome
stated that 1 is a tragedy, 2 is suspicious and 3 is murder.
- He again provided incorrect statistics on SIDS while claiming the babies were healthy
up until they died. However, experts who specialised in SIDS opposed his claim.
- Angela’s family had a history of SIDS. She was later discharged.
- Overall, due to their extensive knowledge and expertise title, people with little to no
knowledge on their subject are likely to believe them, therefore, they contract a lot
of importance throughout the trial as they influence the final verdict.
