Evidence Admissibility and Exceptions in Court Proceedings, Exams of Nursing

Download Evidence Admissibility and Exceptions in Court Proceedings and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!

FOR2609 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (636945) - DUE 16 September 2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. Question 1 In your own words provide your understanding of the term ���previous consistent statement”. (10) Question 2 Opinion evidence can be crucial in solving the case in court. Discuss opinion evidence and the exceptions to the general rule of admissibility. (5) Question 3 The principle of adducing evidence provides that evidence should be corroborated in court. Explain how corroboration is done. (5) Question 4 The presiding officers in criminal courts have the power to adjudicate matters in court. Such powers can include taking “judicial notice.” Define and explain the concept “judicial notice”. (5) Question 5 Dialogue outside of court is different from testifying on the witness stand. In your own words, explain the tendering of evidence. (5) Here's a breakdown of each question with concise explanations: Question 1: Understanding the Term "Previous Consistent Statement" (10 marks) A "previous consistent statement" refers to a statement made by a witness prior to the trial that aligns with their testimony in court. Generally, such statements are inadmissible because they are seen as self-serving and repetitive. However, they may become relevant in specific situations, such as:

1. When a witness is accused of recent fabrication, the consistent statement can be used to rebut this claim.
2. To show that the witness’s testimony has remained consistent over time, which may support their credibility.
3. In cases where the witness’s memory is challenged, previous consistent statements may help demonstrate that the account has been stable.
4. These statements are also useful if they provide context to a witness’s testimony, helping the court understand the sequence of events. Question 2: Opinion Evidence and Exceptions to Admissibility (5 marks) Opinion evidence involves a witness expressing their personal beliefs or judgments rather than providing facts based on direct knowledge. Generally, opinion evidence is inadmissible in court because it may be subjective and not based on observable facts. However, there are notable exceptions:
5. Expert Opinion : Experts may provide opinions within their area of expertise, such as medical or technical fields.
6. Lay Opinion : Non-experts may offer opinions based on their perceptions, such as identifying someone's emotional state.
7. Common Experience : Opinions based on everyday experiences, such as estimating the speed of a vehicle, may be admissible.

4. Ultimate Issue : An expert may sometimes give an opinion on the central issue of the case, though this is often restricted.
5. Spontaneous Statements : Opinions expressed spontaneously during an event (res gestae) might be admissible. Question 3: Corroboration of Evidence (5 marks) Corroboration involves supporting a witness’s testimony with additional evidence that confirms or strengthens their account. This process ensures that the testimony is not solely reliant on a single source. Corroboration can be done through:
6. Other Witness Testimony : Bringing forward another witness who provides similar evidence.
7. Physical Evidence : Linking evidence like fingerprints or DNA to the crime scene to support the witness's story.
8. Documentary Evidence : Using documents or records that align with the witness's testimony.
9. Circumstantial Evidence : Evidence that indirectly supports the main testimony, such as the presence of the accused at the crime scene.
10. Prior Consistent Statements : Using previous statements made by the witness that align with their current testimony. Question 4: Judicial Notice (5 marks)

Judicial notice is a doctrine that allows a court to recognize certain facts as true without requiring formal evidence. These are facts that are so well-known or easily verifiable that they do not need to be proven in court. Judicial notice can be taken for:

1. Public Knowledge : Widely known facts, such as historical events or geographical facts.
2. Established Laws : Existing laws and regulations that are relevant to the case.
3. Scientific Facts : Well-established scientific principles, like the laws of physics.
4. Common Facts : Information that is universally acknowledged and undisputed, such as the days of the week.
5. Official Records : Facts recorded in public records, like birth dates or corporate registrations. Question 5: Tendering of Evidence (5 marks) Tendering evidence refers to the formal process of presenting evidence in court to be considered in a case. The process involves:
6. Introduction of Evidence : The party introduces physical objects, documents, or testimonies as evidence.
7. Relevance and Admissibility : The evidence must be relevant to the case and meet the legal standards for admissibility.
8. Marking as Exhibits : Once accepted, the evidence is marked as an exhibit and becomes part of the court record.

4. Examination by the Opposing Party : The opposing party has the right to examine and challenge the evidence.
5. Consideration by the Court : The evidence is then used by the court to help determine the outcome of the case. Question 6 Describe a trial within a trial. (5) Question 7 The court processes are orderly so is examination in court. In your own words, discuss the types of examination in court in a sequence. (10) Question 8 Briefly explain the factors determining the exclusion of evidence and provide practical examples from your work experience or from any report in the media – of how evidence was contaminated. (10) 2 Question 9 Explain the purpose of privilege and how it can be claimed in court. (5) Question 10 Character plays a huge role in profiling a person. Discuss the admissibility of character evidence in court. (10) Question 11 Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court. Discuss the circumstances which can render hearsay evidence admissible in court. Question 6: Trial Within a Trial

A "trial within a trial" is a procedural mechanism used within a main trial to determine the admissibility of specific evidence or to resolve certain legal issues that arise during the main trial. It occurs when there is a dispute about whether certain evidence should be admitted into the main trial. For instance, if a party objects to a confession on the grounds that it was obtained through coercion, a trial within a trial is held to assess the validity of the confession. This separate mini-hearing allows the judge to evaluate the evidence in question without the jury or primary trial proceedings being influenced. The outcome of the trial within a trial determines whether the contested evidence will be admitted or excluded from the main trial. Question 7: Types of Examination in Court

1. Examination-in-Chief (Direct Examination): o This is the initial questioning of a witness by the party who called them to testify. o The purpose is to elicit information that supports the case of the party calling the witness. o The questioning is typically open-ended, allowing the witness to provide a narrative or detailed account of their observations or knowledge.
2. Cross-Examination: o After examination-in-chief, the opposing party has the opportunity to question the witness. o The goal is to challenge the witness's credibility, test their reliability, and expose any inconsistencies or biases.

o Questions are often leading and aimed at eliciting specific responses that can undermine the witness's testimony or highlight weaknesses.

3. Re-Examination: o Following cross-examination, the party that originally called the witness may conduct a re-examination. o The purpose is to clarify or expand upon issues raised during cross-examination and to address any new points or misunderstandings. o Re-examination is usually limited to topics covered in cross-examination to avoid introducing new matters.
4. Further Examination: o In rare cases, further examination may be permitted if new facts or issues arise after re-examination. o This stage is at the discretion of the court and aims to ensure that all relevant information is properly considered. Question 8: Factors Determining the Exclusion of Evidence and Contamination Examples Factors determining the exclusion of evidence include:
5. Relevance: Evidence must be directly related to the case at hand. Irrelevant evidence may be excluded.
6. Prejudice: Evidence that may unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant, without providing substantial probative value, may be excluded.
7. Illegally Obtained Evidence: Evidence obtained through unlawful means, such as illegal searches or seizures, may be excluded (e.g., evidence obtained without a warrant).

4. Hearsay: Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls under specific exceptions.
5. Incompetence: Evidence that does not meet the standards of competence or reliability may be excluded. Practical Examples of Contamination:

• Handling Errors: In a high-profile case, evidence was contaminated due to improper handling at the crime scene. For instance, in the O.J. Simpson case, concerns about the contamination of DNA evidence due to improper handling and storage were raised.
• Cross-Contamination: In a criminal case involving drug evidence, cross-contamination occurred when forensic samples from different cases were mixed, leading to questions about the integrity of the evidence.
• Improper Storage: Evidence in a burglary case was found to be compromised because it was stored in a non-secure location, leading to potential tampering. Question 9: Purpose of Privilege and How It Can Be Claimed in Court Purpose of Privilege: Privilege serves to protect certain communications from being disclosed in court, recognizing the importance of confidentiality in specific relationships. It ensures that individuals can freely communicate with their legal representatives, healthcare providers, or spouses without fear of those communications being used against them in court. How It Can Be Claimed:

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: Protects communications between a client and their attorney made in the course of seeking legal advice. The client can claim this privilege to prevent their attorney from disclosing those communications.
2. Doctor-Patient Privilege: Protects confidential medical information shared between a patient and their healthcare provider. The patient can claim this privilege to keep their medical records and conversations private.
3. Spousal Privilege: Protects communications between spouses made during the marriage. Either spouse can claim this privilege to prevent the other from disclosing their private communications. Question 10: Admissibility of Character Evidence Character evidence is evidence that pertains to a person’s general disposition or traits. Its admissibility in court is generally limited:
4. Criminal Cases: o Defendant’s Character: A defendant may introduce evidence of their good character to support their defense, especially if they are charged with a crime where their character is relevant (e.g., a violent crime). o Prosecution’s Rebuttal: The prosecution may counter with evidence of the defendant’s bad character to rebut the defense’s claims.
5. Civil Cases: o Character evidence is generally not admissible to prove a person’s conduct on a specific occasion. However, it may be relevant if the character trait is

directly related to the issues in the case (e.g., a claim of defamation).

3. Witness Character: The credibility of witnesses may be challenged through character evidence, but this is usually limited to their truthfulness or honesty. Question 11: Hearsay Evidence and Its Admissibility Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible because it is considered unreliable and the person who made the statement is not available for cross-examination. However, hearsay may be admissible under certain circumstances:
4. Declarations Against Interest: Statements made by a declarant that are against their own interest at the time they were made may be admitted.
5. Excited Utterances: Statements made during or immediately after an exciting or stressful event may be admissible due to their spontaneity and stress-induced reliability.
6. Dying Declarations: Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die concerning the cause or circumstances of their death may be admissible.
7. Business Records: Records made in the regular course of business, reflecting routine transactions, may be admitted under the business records exception.
8. Public Records: Statements from public records or official documents may be admitted as evidence under certain conditions.
9. Statements in Ancient Documents: Statements contained in documents over a certain age may be admitted if they are considered reliable.

7. Prior Testimony: Testimony given in previous legal proceedings may be admitted if the declarant is unavailable, and the testimony meets certain criteria.
8. State of Mind: Statements reflecting the declarant's state of mind, such as intent, motive, or emotional condition, may be admissible.
9. Forfeiture by Wrongdoing: If a party has prevented the declarant from testifying through wrongdoing, hearsay statements by the declarant may be admitted.
10. Residual Exception: Some jurisdictions have a residual or catch-all exception for statements that do not fit traditional exceptions but have equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness. These exceptions help ensure that important and reliable information can be considered by the court, even if it does not fit the usual hearsay rule.