Evidence in a criminal trial The first quotation is hearsay evidence. I think this because the person giving the testimony overheard the conversation between Micheal and the victim. Furthermore, in the textbook it states” hearsay evidence is evidence of someone other than a witness who said or wrote something out of court that may be relevant to the fact of the case. It is usually related to a private conversation that [has] been overheard by a uninvolved person. ” The person giving the testimony is someone other than a witness.
This means that the person saw nothing, but heard everything. I think that the evidence would be not admissible in court since, the person stating the evidence was not directly involved, but overheard a conversation. Hearsay evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence saw nothing, but only overheard a conversation the evidence is considered circumstantial. The second quotation is a confession.
I believe it is a confession since when the accused was confronted by a detective, the accused admitted to robbery, which is a statement of guilt. I think that the evidence is admissible in court. I am assuming that when the detective confronted the accused he did not pressure or threaten the accused. I am also assuming that the accused was not intoxicated when he admitted to the offence. Lastly if the accused was not informed of his right to remain silent or was not given access to a lawyer the evidence is inadmissible. Since in the quote it states none of the above, the evidence is admissible.
I believe that the evidence is direct since, the person giving the testimony is a eyewitness, which means that the person saw everything. In this case the detective saw the accused confess to his partner. The third quotation is a form of expert evidence. I think this because the person giving the testimony is an expert who is acceptable to the court on the subject of the evidence. I think that the evidence is admissible. I think this since the person presenting the evidence has extensive knowledge on the subject they are examining.
In this case the person stating the evidence has thorough knowledge about fingerprints. Expert evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence did not see the crime being committed, but only examined the fingerprints. The fourth quotation is similar fact evidence. I think this because in the quote is states that Mr. Smith stole a car three years ago, and similar fact evidence is when the prosecution presents similarities of previous criminal acts committed by the accused.
I believe that the evidence is admissible since the person presenting the evidence was a victim of Mr. Smiths. Furthermore, the person stating the evidence would have said almost the same thing three years ago, but instead of the past it ould be the present, and if it was admissible than, it would be admissible now. Similar fact evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence is not a eyewitness, the evidence is circumstantial.
I think that the fifth quotation is character evidence, since the person stating the evidence brings up the accuseds character since, in the quote it states “I couldn’t never imagine him raising his hand to anyone. ” I believe that character evidence is admissible in court since, here is no reason why it should not be admissible. Character evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence saw nothing, but is only stating the accuseds good character.
I think that the sixth quotation is photographic and recorded evidence. I think this because in the quote it states that the person interviewing the mayor saw something strange when they replayed the footage. I believe that the evidence is admissible since the person that was being filmed did not have a reasonable expectation of rivacy, since it was a interview. Photographic and recorded evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence saw nothing, but is only stating what they saw on a video tape that they recorded.
The seventh quotation is hearsay evidence. I think this because the son or daughter is a witness to a dying person’s last statement, in the definition on page 201 it states “the witness may testify about what the dying person said. ” In the quote the son or daughter said that their mom’s last words were “bubba did it. I think that the evidence is admissible in court, since if the mom had survived the attack she would have been allowed to give the same testimony. Hearsay evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness.
Since the person stating the evidence saw nothing, but only heard his or her mom state that it was Bubba. The eighth quotation is a confession, I think this since the accused confessed to a undercover police officer that he committed the crime after a few hours of talking. I think that the evidence is not admissible since the accused was ot confronted with a accusation of guilt. Furthermore, the confession was obtained by a police officer, the police officer did not inform Mr. Herbert of his right to remain silent, and the accused was not given access to a lawyer.
Confession evidence is direct since, the police officer was present when Mr. Herbert confessed to the crimes. The police officer was a eyewitness. The second last quotation is hearsay evidence, think this because the father heard the voice of the accused, but never saw them. Furthermore, the evidence cannot be a confession because the father never confronted the accused with a ccusation. I think that the evidence is not admissible, I think this because when a person has confession with a priest, the Catholic Church states that the priest cannot tell anyone about the sins of another person.
Hearsay evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the priest stating the evidence saw nothing, but only heard someone say something. The last quotation is expert evidence, I think this because the person giving giving the testimony is a expert who is acceptable to the court on the subject of the evidence. The evidence cannot e photographic and recorded evidence because that would mean that the lawyer would have to speak to the jury, which is not allowed.
I think that the evidence is admissible. I think this since the person presenting the evidence has extensive knowledge on the subject they are examining. In this case the person stating the evidence has thorough knowledge about photo radar. Expert evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence did not see the crime being committed, but only examined the footage after the crime has been committed.