Topic 2.4 - Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal cases (10 marks, 45
mins)
Evidence
Important in criminal cases, juries or magistrates must account for all physical and testimonial evidence so it has a big impact on outcome. Has to be
sufficient evidence before CPS decide to charge a suspect. In law of England and Wales prosecution must bring in evidence to prove they are making,
known as the burden of proof. Defence dont have to do anything, they just try to put doubt on the evidence so the jury can question it. Prosecution
presents their evidence which must be physical or testimonial, the defence cross examines and presents their own evidence. By the end of the trial the
prosecution has to convince the jury or magistrates that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise he must be acquitted.
Strengths
Evidence given in court can lead to accurate outcomes by objectively determining an individual's guilt or innocence instead of speculation.. For example, in
R v Bracewell (1979), the forensic evidence of blood found on the defendant's clothing directly linked him to the crime scene. The court ruled that the
blood matched the victim's blood group, which provided clear and reliable evidence of their involvement with the murder.
Evidence let’s courts reassess earlier judgements accurately. In R v Stephen Downing (2001), Downing was convicted of murder in 1973 based on
circumstantial evidence and served 27 years in prison. However, during his appeal, DNA testing on the victim's clothing revealed no trace of Downing's
DNA. This new evidence gave important evidence in exonerating him.
When strong evidence is shown to the court it helps to ensure that the decisions reached are objective instead of being facts from the public or media,
reducing jury bias or prejudicial influences. In R v Ahluwalia (1992), the defendant was initially convicted of murder after killing her husband. However,
during her appeal, evidence of prolonged domestic abuse and battered woman syndrome was found, which shifted the court's understanding of her
actions. This evidence resulted in her murder conviction being reduced to manslaughter.
Weaknesses
Sometimes complex evidence can be misunderstood which can lead to wrongful convictions. For example, Sally Clark was wrongly convicted of murdering
her two baby sons. Had died from sudden infant death syndrome, but an expert witness, professor Roy Meadows, told the jury that this was very unlikely
to be true based on a probability of 1 in 73 million, and the jury accepted it as definitive proof. Later found his research was incorrect. This is a
weakness as it shows how wrong evidence can lead to miscarriages in justice.
Courts may place excessive emphasis on certain types of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony which Loftus and Palmer showed to be very unreliable. In
R v Turnball (1976), the court showed the risks of wrongful convictions based just on identification evidence, especially when it is not confirmed. The
Turnball guidelines were introduced to address these issues, showing the need for caution when relying on eyewitness testimony alone.
There is potential bias as evidence can sometimes be selectively presented to favour one side, leading to unjust outcomes.. In R v Adams (1996), the
prosecution relied heavily on DNA evidence, presenting data that overstated the likelihood of the defendant's guilt. While the DNA evidence wasn’t flawed,
its presentation was misleading, influencing the jury's decision.
, Witnesses
Both prosecution and defence teams are entitled to call witnesses to give testimonial evidence. Given in person, unless they are vulnerable or intimidated
witnesses. Witnesses can be called by both sides to give evidence - this is called examination-in-chief. Also an opportunity to cross examine. Jurors and
magistrates can give whatever weight they choose to the evidence of witnesses. Quality of their evidence can determine the outcome of the trial for
example, have they been shown to lie, is there evidence inconsistent, unreliable or not credible.
Strengths
Witness testimony can give the court a first-hand account of events, helping to reconstruct the crime. In the trial of Damilola Taylor (in 2000) who
was a 10 year old schoolboy found dead from a leg wound. The case underwent a lengthy trial spanning 6 years and including 3 trials before convicting 2
brothers. Prosecution's case was filled with holes and heavily reliant on unreliable witnesses such as the 14 year old girl who couldn't stop lying about
what she saw. This shows the CPS’ failure to ensure the case was ready to go to court and that witnesses are not always good as they can lie.
Witness testimony can support other forms of evidence, strengthening the case. For example, in the case of R v Kelly 1981, the defendant was convicted
of rape after the victims testimony was confirmed by medical evidence and the account of an eyewitness who saw Kelly near the scene.
Witnesses can also give more context that can’t be seen from just physical evidence alone. In R v Ahluwalia, witnesses testified about the long-term
abuse suffered by the defendant from her husband, giving the court a deeper understanding of her actions.
Weaknesses
Stereotyping
Racial and gender stereotypes held by jurors may influence how likely the jury are to believe a witness testimony. Kaufmann et al found jurors’ judgement
of how credible victims testimony depended on the victims emotions when giving evidence. Brodsky et al found that juror's view of the witness's knowledge
and factors like likeability influenced them in deciding whether to believe their evidence. Could be that factors such as a witness's gender, appearance,
class, ethnicity, age, demeanour, accent and personality affect the outcome of the case.
Eye witnesses
Jurors believe eyewitnesses even though their evidence isn’t always accurate. The Innocence Project found over 70% of 352 wrong convictions were from
eyewitness misidentification convicting innocent people.
Case Example - Ronald Cotton - In 1984, a man broke into Jennifer Thompson-Cannino’s apartment and sexually assaulted her. Ronald Cotton was
arrested and charged as Jennifer chose Cotton out of a photo lineup. In 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released from prison.
Experts
People with specialist knowledge that ordinary members of the public don’t have. Experts can give their opinion to the court based on their expertise. In
complex cases, the testimony given by expert witnesses is vital. Jurors may automatically assume the expert is right, causing miscarriages of justice as
jurors don’t have expert knowledge so may be ‘blinded by science’, as even if they understand the witnesses, they cannot check for accuracy. For example,
the case of Sally Clark and Sir Roy Meadows who gave a 1 in 73 million statistical chance of sudden infant death syndrome happening. In some cases
both the prosecution and defence can call expert witnesses who disagree on how to interpret facts. This may at least give them an alternative viewpoint.
The judiciary
Strengths
The judiciary is responsible for ensuring cases are decided impartially based on the law, even under public pressure, which make it fair. In R v Brown
mins)
Evidence
Important in criminal cases, juries or magistrates must account for all physical and testimonial evidence so it has a big impact on outcome. Has to be
sufficient evidence before CPS decide to charge a suspect. In law of England and Wales prosecution must bring in evidence to prove they are making,
known as the burden of proof. Defence dont have to do anything, they just try to put doubt on the evidence so the jury can question it. Prosecution
presents their evidence which must be physical or testimonial, the defence cross examines and presents their own evidence. By the end of the trial the
prosecution has to convince the jury or magistrates that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise he must be acquitted.
Strengths
Evidence given in court can lead to accurate outcomes by objectively determining an individual's guilt or innocence instead of speculation.. For example, in
R v Bracewell (1979), the forensic evidence of blood found on the defendant's clothing directly linked him to the crime scene. The court ruled that the
blood matched the victim's blood group, which provided clear and reliable evidence of their involvement with the murder.
Evidence let’s courts reassess earlier judgements accurately. In R v Stephen Downing (2001), Downing was convicted of murder in 1973 based on
circumstantial evidence and served 27 years in prison. However, during his appeal, DNA testing on the victim's clothing revealed no trace of Downing's
DNA. This new evidence gave important evidence in exonerating him.
When strong evidence is shown to the court it helps to ensure that the decisions reached are objective instead of being facts from the public or media,
reducing jury bias or prejudicial influences. In R v Ahluwalia (1992), the defendant was initially convicted of murder after killing her husband. However,
during her appeal, evidence of prolonged domestic abuse and battered woman syndrome was found, which shifted the court's understanding of her
actions. This evidence resulted in her murder conviction being reduced to manslaughter.
Weaknesses
Sometimes complex evidence can be misunderstood which can lead to wrongful convictions. For example, Sally Clark was wrongly convicted of murdering
her two baby sons. Had died from sudden infant death syndrome, but an expert witness, professor Roy Meadows, told the jury that this was very unlikely
to be true based on a probability of 1 in 73 million, and the jury accepted it as definitive proof. Later found his research was incorrect. This is a
weakness as it shows how wrong evidence can lead to miscarriages in justice.
Courts may place excessive emphasis on certain types of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony which Loftus and Palmer showed to be very unreliable. In
R v Turnball (1976), the court showed the risks of wrongful convictions based just on identification evidence, especially when it is not confirmed. The
Turnball guidelines were introduced to address these issues, showing the need for caution when relying on eyewitness testimony alone.
There is potential bias as evidence can sometimes be selectively presented to favour one side, leading to unjust outcomes.. In R v Adams (1996), the
prosecution relied heavily on DNA evidence, presenting data that overstated the likelihood of the defendant's guilt. While the DNA evidence wasn’t flawed,
its presentation was misleading, influencing the jury's decision.
, Witnesses
Both prosecution and defence teams are entitled to call witnesses to give testimonial evidence. Given in person, unless they are vulnerable or intimidated
witnesses. Witnesses can be called by both sides to give evidence - this is called examination-in-chief. Also an opportunity to cross examine. Jurors and
magistrates can give whatever weight they choose to the evidence of witnesses. Quality of their evidence can determine the outcome of the trial for
example, have they been shown to lie, is there evidence inconsistent, unreliable or not credible.
Strengths
Witness testimony can give the court a first-hand account of events, helping to reconstruct the crime. In the trial of Damilola Taylor (in 2000) who
was a 10 year old schoolboy found dead from a leg wound. The case underwent a lengthy trial spanning 6 years and including 3 trials before convicting 2
brothers. Prosecution's case was filled with holes and heavily reliant on unreliable witnesses such as the 14 year old girl who couldn't stop lying about
what she saw. This shows the CPS’ failure to ensure the case was ready to go to court and that witnesses are not always good as they can lie.
Witness testimony can support other forms of evidence, strengthening the case. For example, in the case of R v Kelly 1981, the defendant was convicted
of rape after the victims testimony was confirmed by medical evidence and the account of an eyewitness who saw Kelly near the scene.
Witnesses can also give more context that can’t be seen from just physical evidence alone. In R v Ahluwalia, witnesses testified about the long-term
abuse suffered by the defendant from her husband, giving the court a deeper understanding of her actions.
Weaknesses
Stereotyping
Racial and gender stereotypes held by jurors may influence how likely the jury are to believe a witness testimony. Kaufmann et al found jurors’ judgement
of how credible victims testimony depended on the victims emotions when giving evidence. Brodsky et al found that juror's view of the witness's knowledge
and factors like likeability influenced them in deciding whether to believe their evidence. Could be that factors such as a witness's gender, appearance,
class, ethnicity, age, demeanour, accent and personality affect the outcome of the case.
Eye witnesses
Jurors believe eyewitnesses even though their evidence isn’t always accurate. The Innocence Project found over 70% of 352 wrong convictions were from
eyewitness misidentification convicting innocent people.
Case Example - Ronald Cotton - In 1984, a man broke into Jennifer Thompson-Cannino’s apartment and sexually assaulted her. Ronald Cotton was
arrested and charged as Jennifer chose Cotton out of a photo lineup. In 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released from prison.
Experts
People with specialist knowledge that ordinary members of the public don’t have. Experts can give their opinion to the court based on their expertise. In
complex cases, the testimony given by expert witnesses is vital. Jurors may automatically assume the expert is right, causing miscarriages of justice as
jurors don’t have expert knowledge so may be ‘blinded by science’, as even if they understand the witnesses, they cannot check for accuracy. For example,
the case of Sally Clark and Sir Roy Meadows who gave a 1 in 73 million statistical chance of sudden infant death syndrome happening. In some cases
both the prosecution and defence can call expert witnesses who disagree on how to interpret facts. This may at least give them an alternative viewpoint.
The judiciary
Strengths
The judiciary is responsible for ensuring cases are decided impartially based on the law, even under public pressure, which make it fair. In R v Brown
