AC 3.1: Examine information for validity (15 marks)
Remember to use the key terms - Bias, opinion, circumstances, currency and accuracy
Brief Intro: Evidence
There are 3 types of evidence that can be put forward by the prosecution and defence; Eyewitness
testimony, Expert witness statements and Forensic evidence. The evidence is examined by the jury
who then decide on a verdict based on how accurate they believe it is.
Case studies
Ronald Cotton – Cotton was wrongly convicted of rape after being incorrectly chosen in a police
line-up. It has been suggested that the police were racist, as they believed a middle-class white
woman (Jennifer Thompson) over a black male, which shows police bias. The evidence presented
to the jury during trial was inaccurate, as Thompson had picked out the wrong man (it was actually
Bobby Poole) Currency effected the case, as during the time that passed between the when
Thompson was attacked and the line-up her memory will be affected.
Sally Clark – Clark was convicted of killing her 2 infant sons after Roy Meadows opinion in court
was that the chances of 2 children dying of the condition was 1 in 73 million, which was
inaccurate and not based on real statistics. The circumstances of Meadows meant he was believed
by the jury, as he was seen as credible and the jury were ‘blinded by science’.
How the information might be invalid
Ronald Cotton – The evidence in this case was invalid, as Jennifer Thompson’s memory was
affected due to the length of time between the attack and the police line-up, where the police used
leading questions. A study by Loftus and Palmer proves that leading questions change how a
person recalls an event.
Sally Clark – The evidence was invalid, as the jury relied solely on Roy Meadows statement,
which led to a miscarriage of justice when Clark was convicted.
Link to the brief?
Brief conclusion
Overall, the evidence presented in the trial by the prosecution or defence is decided on its validity
by the jury/magistrates, so they can put as much weight on the evidence (physical/testimonial) as
they see fit.
Remember to use the key terms - Bias, opinion, circumstances, currency and accuracy
Brief Intro: Trial Transcripts
A trial transcript is an exact written record of everything spoken in court, it is done through a
recording device (DARTS)
How valid are Trial Transcripts
§ They are VERY accurate, as it is a specific recording of what's spoken during a trial.
§ Using DARTS means it is unbiased, as it's from an objective point of view and not
someone's interpretation.
How the information might be invalid
§ Body language is not recorded, which can change how statements are perceived.
§ There is a risk of the technology malfunctioning, which could cause the loss of valuable
information.
§ Some words might not be recorded due to slang and accents (A study conducted by the
BBC showed that black, Asian and minority ethnic groups words were not transcribed
correctly)
§ Depending on the circumstances of the trial, noise in the background of court can disrupt
the recording, for example the mother of Charlie Guard was removed from court for being
disruptive, so other statements in court might not be picked up by DARTS.
Link to the brief?
Remember to use the key terms - Bias, opinion, circumstances, currency and accuracy
Brief Intro: Evidence
There are 3 types of evidence that can be put forward by the prosecution and defence; Eyewitness
testimony, Expert witness statements and Forensic evidence. The evidence is examined by the jury
who then decide on a verdict based on how accurate they believe it is.
Case studies
Ronald Cotton – Cotton was wrongly convicted of rape after being incorrectly chosen in a police
line-up. It has been suggested that the police were racist, as they believed a middle-class white
woman (Jennifer Thompson) over a black male, which shows police bias. The evidence presented
to the jury during trial was inaccurate, as Thompson had picked out the wrong man (it was actually
Bobby Poole) Currency effected the case, as during the time that passed between the when
Thompson was attacked and the line-up her memory will be affected.
Sally Clark – Clark was convicted of killing her 2 infant sons after Roy Meadows opinion in court
was that the chances of 2 children dying of the condition was 1 in 73 million, which was
inaccurate and not based on real statistics. The circumstances of Meadows meant he was believed
by the jury, as he was seen as credible and the jury were ‘blinded by science’.
How the information might be invalid
Ronald Cotton – The evidence in this case was invalid, as Jennifer Thompson’s memory was
affected due to the length of time between the attack and the police line-up, where the police used
leading questions. A study by Loftus and Palmer proves that leading questions change how a
person recalls an event.
Sally Clark – The evidence was invalid, as the jury relied solely on Roy Meadows statement,
which led to a miscarriage of justice when Clark was convicted.
Link to the brief?
Brief conclusion
Overall, the evidence presented in the trial by the prosecution or defence is decided on its validity
by the jury/magistrates, so they can put as much weight on the evidence (physical/testimonial) as
they see fit.
Remember to use the key terms - Bias, opinion, circumstances, currency and accuracy
Brief Intro: Trial Transcripts
A trial transcript is an exact written record of everything spoken in court, it is done through a
recording device (DARTS)
How valid are Trial Transcripts
§ They are VERY accurate, as it is a specific recording of what's spoken during a trial.
§ Using DARTS means it is unbiased, as it's from an objective point of view and not
someone's interpretation.
How the information might be invalid
§ Body language is not recorded, which can change how statements are perceived.
§ There is a risk of the technology malfunctioning, which could cause the loss of valuable
information.
§ Some words might not be recorded due to slang and accents (A study conducted by the
BBC showed that black, Asian and minority ethnic groups words were not transcribed
correctly)
§ Depending on the circumstances of the trial, noise in the background of court can disrupt
the recording, for example the mother of Charlie Guard was removed from court for being
disruptive, so other statements in court might not be picked up by DARTS.
Link to the brief?
