AC 3.2 (1.20)
Just verdicts
● fair+impartial actions/judgements (consistent with law)
● In courtroom, just verdicts result of E presented by P+D (does justice according to
facts in case)
● Criminal justice system not always produced verdicts that just
double jeopardy rule:
○ Law until 2003- someone acquitted crime couldn't be prosecuted for same offense
again
○ Fair law at time- person couldn’t be harassed (found not guilty- they not guilty)
○ Problems arised- cases evident ‘not guilty’ unjust
○ E.G. D later confesses crime/new E found (Billy Dunlop+murder Julie Hogg)
● Unjust verdict- something unfair/not morally right
● Thousands cases per yr-vast majority decided correctly with E available at time
● occasions takes years for D to be brought to justice
Case study 1
Stephen Lawrence:
○ Murdered by white gang
○ 18 yrs-gain successful conviction against 2 suspects (errors by police throughout-
ingrained racism)
○ Initial officer lack urgency+often inactive on case (since reviewed- 28 police failings)
○ Dwayne Brookes- treated like suspect (racial profiled)- should’ve been eyewitness
○ HOLMES computer system inadequate+lack trained officers who could use system
(loss of info)
○ Info on weapons under suspects floorboard not given to search team (E lost)
○ covert video shot in suspects flat- 4 suspects racist+violent with knife to SL public
inquiry
○ DNA fibres linked suspect to crime- convicted
○ Courts come to just verdict against 2 convicted
○ Original investigation- 5 suspects highlighted being involved
○ time went on it-impossible to convict all
○ 3 suspects should not be free (police received 22 firm leads about suspects being 5
white men- no P followed)
○ Argue unjust (how long took for conviction+errors by police)
○ Unjust verdict- until all of suspects arrested, justice isn’t served (potentially enough
E)
Case study 2
Philando Castile:
○ racial profiled
○ Pulled over in car- resembled suspect in armed robbery
○ Shot by officer infront child+gf who videoed
○ Officer received light sentence- no reason to shoot
○ jury decided couldn't see what happened in car- clear video E PC telling officer what
he was doing (trust D's Work)
, ○ officer charged second degree murder (manslughter in the UK) -unjust verdict as E
shows attack unjustified
○ jury too lenient as D was in position of power
Case study 3
OJ Simpson:
○ widely publicised events in american history
○ status +power led to unjust verdict
○ "Dream Team"-team of trial lawyers represented O.J. (rich afford best)
○ Accused killing former wife Nicole Brown Simpson + friend
○ relationship with ex-wife known to be abusive
○ D put police on trial- suggested racist, corrupt police investigation
○ cast doubt on E- found not guilty
○ lack of E-clear to see impact his position had on verdic
○ legal system didn’t want to seem racist through guilty verdict (overlooked vital E-
pushed unjust verdict)
Conclusion
● unjust verdicts occur more frequently than believe (can be from biased opinions)
● Correcting verdicts long process-requires original verdict found miscarriage of justice
● procedures/effort put into ensuring wrongful convictions don't occur
● legal system not perfect-still occur
Miscarriages of justice
● Conviction+subsequent punishment of person for crime didn't commit+failure attain
justice-
● Numerous cases- usually found innocent new E e.g. DNA/technology (advancing)
● innocence project- charity based project (overturn all wrongful convictions-USA)
● IP- wrongful convictions 6 factors:
● Jailhouse informants
● Inadequate D
● Miss applied forensic
● Access post-conviction DNA testing
● False confessions (forced confessions/protecting other)
● Eyewitness misidentification (cases:sole prosecution E+too relied on in court)
● 75% wrongful convictions- eyewitness testimony
● IP- new DNA E technology- overturned 329 wrongful convictions since 1989
Case study 1
Guildford four
○ miscarriage of justice-4 innocent sentenced life imprisonment (large pressure
police/need to find O- corruption)
○ direct involvement with IRA attack pub bombings 1974
○ intense interrogation by police-arrested
○ statements later retracted- still basis of case against them
○ Alleged statements result police coercion (from intimidation (threats against fam)/
torture)
Just verdicts
● fair+impartial actions/judgements (consistent with law)
● In courtroom, just verdicts result of E presented by P+D (does justice according to
facts in case)
● Criminal justice system not always produced verdicts that just
double jeopardy rule:
○ Law until 2003- someone acquitted crime couldn't be prosecuted for same offense
again
○ Fair law at time- person couldn’t be harassed (found not guilty- they not guilty)
○ Problems arised- cases evident ‘not guilty’ unjust
○ E.G. D later confesses crime/new E found (Billy Dunlop+murder Julie Hogg)
● Unjust verdict- something unfair/not morally right
● Thousands cases per yr-vast majority decided correctly with E available at time
● occasions takes years for D to be brought to justice
Case study 1
Stephen Lawrence:
○ Murdered by white gang
○ 18 yrs-gain successful conviction against 2 suspects (errors by police throughout-
ingrained racism)
○ Initial officer lack urgency+often inactive on case (since reviewed- 28 police failings)
○ Dwayne Brookes- treated like suspect (racial profiled)- should’ve been eyewitness
○ HOLMES computer system inadequate+lack trained officers who could use system
(loss of info)
○ Info on weapons under suspects floorboard not given to search team (E lost)
○ covert video shot in suspects flat- 4 suspects racist+violent with knife to SL public
inquiry
○ DNA fibres linked suspect to crime- convicted
○ Courts come to just verdict against 2 convicted
○ Original investigation- 5 suspects highlighted being involved
○ time went on it-impossible to convict all
○ 3 suspects should not be free (police received 22 firm leads about suspects being 5
white men- no P followed)
○ Argue unjust (how long took for conviction+errors by police)
○ Unjust verdict- until all of suspects arrested, justice isn’t served (potentially enough
E)
Case study 2
Philando Castile:
○ racial profiled
○ Pulled over in car- resembled suspect in armed robbery
○ Shot by officer infront child+gf who videoed
○ Officer received light sentence- no reason to shoot
○ jury decided couldn't see what happened in car- clear video E PC telling officer what
he was doing (trust D's Work)
, ○ officer charged second degree murder (manslughter in the UK) -unjust verdict as E
shows attack unjustified
○ jury too lenient as D was in position of power
Case study 3
OJ Simpson:
○ widely publicised events in american history
○ status +power led to unjust verdict
○ "Dream Team"-team of trial lawyers represented O.J. (rich afford best)
○ Accused killing former wife Nicole Brown Simpson + friend
○ relationship with ex-wife known to be abusive
○ D put police on trial- suggested racist, corrupt police investigation
○ cast doubt on E- found not guilty
○ lack of E-clear to see impact his position had on verdic
○ legal system didn’t want to seem racist through guilty verdict (overlooked vital E-
pushed unjust verdict)
Conclusion
● unjust verdicts occur more frequently than believe (can be from biased opinions)
● Correcting verdicts long process-requires original verdict found miscarriage of justice
● procedures/effort put into ensuring wrongful convictions don't occur
● legal system not perfect-still occur
Miscarriages of justice
● Conviction+subsequent punishment of person for crime didn't commit+failure attain
justice-
● Numerous cases- usually found innocent new E e.g. DNA/technology (advancing)
● innocence project- charity based project (overturn all wrongful convictions-USA)
● IP- wrongful convictions 6 factors:
● Jailhouse informants
● Inadequate D
● Miss applied forensic
● Access post-conviction DNA testing
● False confessions (forced confessions/protecting other)
● Eyewitness misidentification (cases:sole prosecution E+too relied on in court)
● 75% wrongful convictions- eyewitness testimony
● IP- new DNA E technology- overturned 329 wrongful convictions since 1989
Case study 1
Guildford four
○ miscarriage of justice-4 innocent sentenced life imprisonment (large pressure
police/need to find O- corruption)
○ direct involvement with IRA attack pub bombings 1974
○ intense interrogation by police-arrested
○ statements later retracted- still basis of case against them
○ Alleged statements result police coercion (from intimidation (threats against fam)/
torture)
