• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Legal Systems and Court Structures
 

Legal Systems and Court Structures

on

  • 3,688 views

Legal systems, court structures and expert evidence in the UK and US

Legal systems, court structures and expert evidence in the UK and US

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,688
Views on SlideShare
3,062
Embed Views
626

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
87
Comments
0

7 Embeds 626

http://blackboard.gcal.ac.uk 509
https://blackboard.gcal.ac.uk 65
http://blackboard.uws.ac.uk 21
http://www.slideshare.net 20
http://gcaltemp.blackboard.com 6
http://www.linkedin.com 3
http://arts.moodle.gla.ac.uk 2
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • May eliminate suicide or counteract defences of self-defence Shape indicates direction of impact (Cast-off) Spatter analysis – confusion with arterial spurts Small droplets (gunshot) = high velocity (travel short distance) indicator of proximity Large droplets (punch) = medium velocity (travel longer distance)
  • Nothing in the text of Rule 702 of the FRE, governing expert testimony, establishes general acceptance as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility A rigid general acceptance requirement would be at odds with the liberal thrust of the FRE and their general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony
  • Nothing in the text of Rule 702 of the FRE, governing expert testimony, establishes general acceptance as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility A rigid general acceptance requirement would be at odds with the liberal thrust of the FRE and their general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony

Legal Systems and Court Structures Legal Systems and Court Structures Presentation Transcript

  • Law and Court Structure Michael Bromby Reader in Law Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning m.bromby@gcu.ac.uk
  • Global Systems • Anglo-American (common law) – UK, USA, Commonwealth nations • Continental (civil jurisdiction) – Mainland Europe • Other systems – China, East Asia
  • British Isles • England and Wales • Scotland • N Ireland • Channel Islands – Jersey – Guernsey (inc Alderney) • Isle of Man • Republic of Ireland
  • Legal System • Public Law – Criminal law – Public order – Judicial review • Private Law – Tort / delict – Negligence – Family law
  • Criminal Court Structure JP Court (prev. District Court) Sheriff Court High Court of Justiciary Court of Criminal Appeal (HCJ - Edinburgh) --- UK Supreme Court (London) (devolution matters) ECHR (Strasbourg) (Human Rights related) ICC (Hague) (Completely different!)
  • English Crim Court Structure Magistrates’ Court Crown Court Central Criminal Court Court of Appeal (criminal division) UK Supreme Court (prev. House of Lords)
  • JUDGE Witness Box Clerk P r e s s Public Gallery DOCK COUNSEL Prosec. Defence SOLICITORS J U R Y
  • Procedure • Solemn – Accused appears on indictment – by the Lord Advocate (e.g. HMA v Smith) – Jury (facts) and Judge (law) • Summary – Accused appears on complaint – by the Procurator Fiscal (e.g. PF of Dundee v Smith) – Judge (facts and law)
  • Pleas of the Crown • High Court of Justiciary only! – Murder – Rape – Treason – Incest – Also: • Terrorism • Wilful fireraising • Other serious crimes
  • Who’s Who? • Advocate Depute Crown Office • Fiscal (Depute) COPFS (regional) • Solicitor (Defence agent) • Crown Prosecutor England (CPS Barrister) • DPP NI, Australia • (District) Attorney USA • Crown Attorney Canada
  • Burden of Proof • Criminal – Beyond reasonable doubt – No requirement for defence evidence • Civil – Balance of probabilities
  • Evidence • Admissibility – Legal issues (judge) • Reliability – Jury analysis • Sufficiency – Prima facie case
  • Evidence • Examination in chief – Main points of evidence (probative value) • Cross examination – Checking of reliability etc • Re-examination – Opportunity to redress any prejudice
  • Legal Requirements • Actus reus – Commission / omission – “the naughty act” • Mens rea – Intention to commit a crime – “the naughty thought”
  • Legal Requirements • Act or Omission – Both actus reus and mens rea – Inchoate: attempt / incitement / conspiracy • Unlawful – Defences – see next slide – Insanity as a bar to trial • Identification – Eyewitness – Forensics – Corroboration
  • Legal Requirements • Defences may be Complete or Mitigating • Special Defences – alibi, incrimination, insanity, self-defence, automatism and coercion • Defences – Diminished responsibility, provocation, intoxication, necessity, superior orders • Why the distinction?
  • Part 2
  • Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who’s keeping an eye on the gatekeepers?) Expert Evidence and Legal Safeguards for Identification
  • Expert Witnesses • Admissibility of Expert Testimony – Frye v United States (1923) 54 App DC 46 • Exclusive ‘general acceptance test’ • Superseded by Federal Rules of Evidence (702) • Attack on authority, not content “In principle, under the Federal Rules no common law of evidence remains. "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided . . . ."
  • Expert Witnesses • Admissibility of Scientific Expertise – Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993) 509 US 579 • Falsifiability • Peer review and publication • General acceptance within the relevant academic community • Known (or potential) rate of error • Existence and maintenance of standards
  • Expert Witnesses • Admissibility of Technical Expertise – Kumho Tire v Carmichael (1999) 526 US 137 • Relevant and reliable • Applies to all expertise, not just scientific • May rely on experience and judgment • Daubert criteria may still be applied in these areas
  • Expert Witnesses • Admissibility of Expert Testimony – UK Approach • Ad hoc admissibility • Often Daubert factors are touched upon in cross- examination • Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) well developed regarding expert witnesses in England and Wales • Similar rules and guidelines now exist for Criminal Law in E+W
  • Expert Witnesses • Admissibility of identification evidence: – DNA, match probabilities – Fingerprints, 16 point match – Faces, lack of database material – Voice, restricted to accent and dialect • Study of comparison • Opinion of probability
  • Rulings on Types of Expertise • Inadmissible – Provocation - R v Turner (1975) – Likelihood of suicide - R v Wood (1990) – Truthfulness of witnesses - R v MacKenney (1983) • Admissible – Insanity - R v Homes (1953) – Diminished responsibility - R v Bailey (1977) – Automatism - R v Smith (1979)
  • Which Approach? “[T]he correct approach is to admit such evidence based on hearsay and that the judge has a responsibility to warn the jury as to the flimsy or non-existent foundations of the expert evidence” M. Redmayne
  • Ultimate Issue Rule • Expert opinion permitted in: – R v Stockwell (1993) • Evidence of identification – Barings Plc (2001) • Professional negligence – The judge and jury are not bound to accept an admissible opinion… • Do they realise this?
  • Jury Perceptions • White coat syndrome • Number dyslexia • Baffled by jargon, science and law • … and by the judge! • Facts, opinions and alternatives require more separation in court
  • Improvements • Joint minutes/memoranda of understanding • Written questions and responses • Single joint experts?! • Court-appointed experts and assessors
  • Legal Safeguards • Corroboration – Not a legal art in E&W, requirement in Scotland for all facts to be independently supported by two sources – Current debate in Scotland about corroboration • Challenge by the Defence – Clash of expert witness opinion; lack of time or finances to retain a second expert
  • Legal Safeguards • Common-law Submission – Outwith cross-examination, either party may suggest that the evidence is unreliable • Directions to the Jury – Improved judicial knowledge and training in scientific areas is required
  • Summary • Expert evidence may be useful, but not conclusive or sufficiently probative • Legal safeguards offer some protection, but may not be sufficient either • Responsibility lies with the professional ethics of the expert, and of the judge