AC2.4 Writeup
Evidence
In terms of court proceedings, evidence can be defined as any information that is presented with the
aim of helping the jury decide whether or not a crime has been committed. Each jury member takes
an oath (or affirmation) traditionally as follows: “I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the
defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”. The evidence must be only that
presented in court in the form of physical or testimonial evidence and is also the primary, most
significant influence on the verdict. Evidence may be questioned or challenged in court and It is up to
each jury member or each magistrate to attach whatever weight they consider appropriate to each
piece of evidence. Evidence is key to an outcome as it is presented by both sides during a trial. The
jury must only take this into account when deciding a verdict. The CPS must also decide whether to
charge based on evidence.
In the Law of England and Wales, the prosecution must bring evidence to prove the claim they are
making, this is known as the burden of proof. The standard of proof, in criminal matters, is beyond
reasonable doubt or until the jury or magistrate are sure of the verdict. If there is any doubt there
must be an acquittal. The defence do not have to prove anything, although in practice they will try to
cast as much doubt as possible on the evidence.
Evidence can have many impacts to a case. For example, new compelling evidence may enable a
retrial as a result of double jeopardy or how evidence improperly or illegally obtained is deemed
inadmissible and could lead to a case being acquitted. Also, evidence which was contaminated or not
maintained the chain of custody could be deemed inadmissible even if it was the only evidence
available to convict someone.
A case study that links to evidence and the burden of proof is the Amanda Knox case study. Italy’s
highest court acquitted Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of the murder
because there were “stunning flaws” in the investigation that led to their convictions, according to
judges’ legal reasoning. An example of inadmissible evidence in court and the burden of proof is
when the prosecution raised the evidence of the bra strap, the defence stated that the bra strap was
collected as evidence 47 days later and therefore was inadmissible in court.
Another example is that the knife inflicting the mortal wound almost certainly was thrust with
considerable force into the throat to the full depth of the blade. The killer then pulled the knife
upward with maximum force increasing the length of the gaping wound. If Sollecito’s knife had in
fact inflicted the mortal wound to Kercher, the depth of the wound would be expected to be much
deeper than the wound measured in the autopsy. This was just one of many evidences that helped
reach Amanda Knox be acquitted.
Witnesses and Expert Witnesses
Both the prosecution and defence are entitled to call witnesses in support of their case. If the
witness 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 witness 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,
which is called examination-in-chief. Witnesses can also be asked questions by the other side, or
Evidence
In terms of court proceedings, evidence can be defined as any information that is presented with the
aim of helping the jury decide whether or not a crime has been committed. Each jury member takes
an oath (or affirmation) traditionally as follows: “I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the
defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”. The evidence must be only that
presented in court in the form of physical or testimonial evidence and is also the primary, most
significant influence on the verdict. Evidence may be questioned or challenged in court and It is up to
each jury member or each magistrate to attach whatever weight they consider appropriate to each
piece of evidence. Evidence is key to an outcome as it is presented by both sides during a trial. The
jury must only take this into account when deciding a verdict. The CPS must also decide whether to
charge based on evidence.
In the Law of England and Wales, the prosecution must bring evidence to prove the claim they are
making, this is known as the burden of proof. The standard of proof, in criminal matters, is beyond
reasonable doubt or until the jury or magistrate are sure of the verdict. If there is any doubt there
must be an acquittal. The defence do not have to prove anything, although in practice they will try to
cast as much doubt as possible on the evidence.
Evidence can have many impacts to a case. For example, new compelling evidence may enable a
retrial as a result of double jeopardy or how evidence improperly or illegally obtained is deemed
inadmissible and could lead to a case being acquitted. Also, evidence which was contaminated or not
maintained the chain of custody could be deemed inadmissible even if it was the only evidence
available to convict someone.
A case study that links to evidence and the burden of proof is the Amanda Knox case study. Italy’s
highest court acquitted Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of the murder
because there were “stunning flaws” in the investigation that led to their convictions, according to
judges’ legal reasoning. An example of inadmissible evidence in court and the burden of proof is
when the prosecution raised the evidence of the bra strap, the defence stated that the bra strap was
collected as evidence 47 days later and therefore was inadmissible in court.
Another example is that the knife inflicting the mortal wound almost certainly was thrust with
considerable force into the throat to the full depth of the blade. The killer then pulled the knife
upward with maximum force increasing the length of the gaping wound. If Sollecito’s knife had in
fact inflicted the mortal wound to Kercher, the depth of the wound would be expected to be much
deeper than the wound measured in the autopsy. This was just one of many evidences that helped
reach Amanda Knox be acquitted.
Witnesses and Expert Witnesses
Both the prosecution and defence are entitled to call witnesses in support of their case. If the
witness 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 witness 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,
which is called examination-in-chief. Witnesses can also be asked questions by the other side, or
