THE HIGH COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE: AYTUGRUL v THE QUEEN [2012] HCA 15 (18 APRIL 2012) ǂ
|
|
- Howard Wiggins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 89 THE HIGH COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE: AYTUGRUL v THE QUEEN [2012] HCA 15 (18 APRIL 2012) ǂ DR GREGOR URBAS* ABSTRACT The High Court of Australia has dealt with the admissibility of DNA evidence in criminal trials in only a few cases. In this most recent decision, the focus of analysis was on whether the manner in which an expert witness for the prosecution had presented information about DNA match probabilities was unfairly prejudicial. The appellant had argued that the expert s presentation of statistical information in the form of an exclusion percentage (99.9%) as opposed to a frequency ratio (1 in 1,600) was unfairly prejudicial due to its likelihood of being given too much weight by a jury, or being misleading or confusing. The High Court unanimously rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. I BACKGROUND FACTS AND FIRST APPEAL The appellant had been convicted of murder in the New South Wales Supreme Court. More than two years before her death by stabbing, the victim had been in a relationship with the appellant. This relationship failed and the victim had formed a relationship with another man. The Crown case was that the appellant was motivated by jealousy and had stalked and harassed her for some months before her death. He also published a poem in the Turkish Weekly News declaring his love for her (both the appellant and the victim were of Turkish origin): 1 Even if you don t want to remember my name, Don t want to hear my voice Even if you say give up, I cannot give you up Even if you say forget, I cannot forget the beautiful Days we lived ǂThis article is a case note and therefore has not been peer-reviewed. * Senior Lecturer in Law, Australian National University. 1 As translated from Turkish: see R v Yusuf Aytugrul [2009] NSWSC 275 (16 April 2009), [7].
2 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 90 Even if you cry all your hate, say give up, I cannot give up. After his conviction, there was an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, on the ground that a miscarriage of justice occurred because of the prejudicial way in which DNA evidence was expressed to the jury. 2 The appellant argued that an expert witness called by the prosecution, Ms Gina Pineda, Associate Laboratory Director and Technical Leader of a United States DNA laboratory company, had presented her evidence in an unacceptable way. This evidence concerned the results of mitochondrial DNA testing that had been performed on a hair sample that had been found under the thumbnail of the victim. 3 This testing revealed a DNA profile that was not that of the victim or her maternal relatives, but was consistent with the DNA profile obtained from saliva taken from the appellant. 4 As is generally the case with DNA profile matching, a negative result or exclusion is definitive the two profiles come from different biological sources but a positive result or inclusion is not definitive the two matching profiles may have come from the same source, but there is a non-zero probability of a random source other than the first source having the same DNA profile. In presenting this information in court, great care must be taken in correctly stating and explaining the relevant probabilities, how they are calculated, and what they signify. 5 In the 2 Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272 (3 December 2010); see also Andrew Ligertwood, Can DNA Evidence Alone Convict An Accused? (2011) 33(3) Sydney Law Review 487, As noted in the High Court, the central complaint made in both the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court was as to a decision on the admissibility of evidence, and so better cast as a wrong decision of any question of law under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW): see Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15 (18 April 2012), [18], (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ). As to the common form grounds of appeal, see Gregor Urbas, DNA Evidence in Criminal Appeals and Post- Conviction Inquiries: Are New Forms of Review Required? (2002) 2(2) Macquarie Law Journal Mitochondrial DNA (mtdna) is shared among members of a family to a greater extent than nuclear DNA, and can also be used for forensic matching in some circumstances: see Marc Smith and Gregor Urbas, Regulating New Forms of Forensic DNA Profiling under Australian Legislation: Familial Matching and DNA Phenotyping (2012) 44(1) Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 63; F. Kaestle, et al, Database Limitations on the Evidentiary Value of Forensic Mitochondrial DNA Evidence (2006) 43 American Criminal Law Review 53; DNA Profiling Recent Developments and Future Directions (2012) CrimTrac < RecentDevelopmentsandFutureDirections.html>. 4 The applicable forensic procedures legislation in New South Wales is the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW). This governs the taking of biological material from persons including suspects, and the permissible matching of DNA profiles thereby obtained against others including those obtained from crime scene samples. 5 See Jeremy Gans and Gregor Urbas, DNA Evidence in the Criminal Justice System (2002) 226 Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. In Australia, the Profiler Plus system is most widely used, and tests at nine loci or
3 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 91 Aytugrul case, the fact that mitochondrial DNA was involved meant that the frequency of the expected occurrence of that particular profile in the community was far greater than would typically be seen in a case involving nuclear DNA matching, where match probabilities of one in millions or even one in billions are routinely calculated. Nonetheless, the experts in this case, including Ms Pineda, were able to present figures of around one in persons in the general community having the DNA profile generated from the hair sample, a profile shared by the appellant. Putting this statistic in a different but mathematically equivalent form, 99.9% of the population would not be expected to have this DNA profile. 6 It is at this point that the appellant s central argument can be clarified. Defence counsel at the trial had objected to the admission of her expert evidence, unsuccessfully, including on the ground that the use of the 99.9% exclusion percentage was unfairly prejudicial [b]ecause it has a connotation that is very different to the reality. This was elaborated in the arguments on appeal to be because a jury was liable to subconsciously round up such a probability to one, and mistakenly infer that there was a mathematical certainty (or close to it) of the appellant s guilt. 7 In the Court of Criminal Appeal, only McClellan CJ at CL agreed with this contention, referring to published academic work on the differing persuasive power of probabilistic formulations. 8 By contrast, Simpson and Fullerton JJ, while agreeing that as between equivalent statistical statements, some formulations have a greater educative force or persuasive appeal than others; or... are more colourful, or more easily comprehended, than others, did not regard this as amounting to a basis for exclusion because of a risk of unfair prejudice or the evidence being misleading or confusing. 9 Thus, the Court of Appeal, by a two to one majority, dismissed the appeal. genetic markers, whereas in the United States up to 14 loci are tested, allowing for greater discrimination between potential sources. 6 Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272 (3 December 2010), [56] (McClellan CJ at CL). 7 Ibid,[63] (McClellan CJ at CL). 8 Ibid,[89]-[95] (McClellan CJ at CL). 9 Ibid, [164] (McClellan CJ at CL), [198] (McClellan CJ at CL), [238] (Fullerton J).
4 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 92 II THE HIGH COURT S DECISION The leading opinion was the joint judgment of French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ. Their Honours stated that [n]o sufficient foundation was laid, at trial or on appeal (whether to the Court of Criminal Appeal or this Court) for the creation or application of a general rule to the effect that evidence expressing the results of DNA analysis as an exclusion percentage would in every case be inadmissible because its probative value is always outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. 10 This was in part because it was an improper exercise of judicial notice to take into account general studies of psychological reactions to statistical information (as had McClellan CJ at CL) without recourse to the requirement that parties be able to make submissions on such material, statutorily embodied in s 144(4) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). 11 Even if such material were considered, however, it did not establish the risk of unfair prejudice referred to in s 135(a) and s 137 or the danger that the evidence might be misleading or confusing under s 135(b) of that Act: 12 No reason is shown for answering either form of those more particular questions in favour of the appellant. The evidence given was clear. It was evidence adverse to the appellant but it was in no sense unfairly prejudicial, or misleading or confusing. The exclusion percentage given was high 99.9 per cent but relevant content was given to that figure by the frequency ratios that were stated in evidence. As the trial judge pointed out to the jury, the evidence that was given did not, and was not said to, establish that the mitochondrial DNA profile found in the hair definitely came from the appellant. There was no risk of rounding the figure of 99.9 per cent to the certainty of 100 per cent. In a separate judgment, though dealing at greater length with some of the other evidentiary aspects of the appellant s arguments, Heydon J agreed as to the main issues of unfair prejudice and discretionary exclusion: 13 No doubt both the frequency estimate and the exclusion percentage evidence, like many other aspects of the expert evidence, were difficult for the jury to deal with. The field is arcane. But any criminal jury of 12 is likely to contain at least one juror capable of realising, and demonstrating to the 10 Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15, [20]. 11 Ibid,[21]. 12 Ibid,[24] (emphasis original). 13 Ibid,[75]. His Honour also dealt with the question whether an appeal based on s 137 can be entertained if the appellant did not object at trial to the admission of evidence as unfairly prejudicial; with the meaning of probative value in s 135 and s 137; with the slicing up of logically equivalent pieces of evidence; and with the taking of judicial notice under s 144 of the Act.
5 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 93 other jurors, that the frequency estimate was the same as the exclusion percentage. Further, detailed evidence was given about how the exclusion percentage evidence was derived from the concededly admissible frequency estimate evidence, and how their significance was identical. The appeal was unanimously dismissed. III COMMENT The High Court s analysis stands in conformity with the few other cases in which it has significantly considered the admissibility of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings. In Hillier v The Queen, the High Court unanimously ruled that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Court of Appeal had been in error in its treatment of DNA evidence in a successful appeal from a murder conviction. 14 The majority on the Court of Appeal, notably comprising the Chief Justice of the ACT and the President of the Court of Appeal, had erred in assessing the DNA evidence, as well as other elements of the Crown s circumstantial case, in isolation rather than in the light of the totality of admissible evidence. 15 In the special leave application of Forbes v The Queen, also arising in the ACT, but this time involving a sexual assault, DNA evidence provided the central evidentiary link between the applicant and the crime. The appeal against conviction, and the special leave application, relied on the proposition that no conviction should ever be based on DNA alone. Noting that this was not such a case, there being other evidence including the applicant s own alibi testimony (which the jury had evidently not believed), the application for special leave was refused. Along the way, Heydon J observed: Hillier v R [2005] ACTCA 48 (15 December 2005) (Higgins CJ and Crispin P, with Spender J in dissent). The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the High Court against this decision: R v Hillier [2007] HCA R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13, [1] (Gleeson CJ), agreeing with the joint judgment of Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ, who pointedly ordered the rehearing of the appeal by a differently constituted Court of Appeal ([55]). Calinnan J agreed, though would have ordered a retrial. The second appeal (before Madgwick, Weinberg and Dowsett JJ) resulted in orders for a retrial: Hillier v R [2008] ACTCA 3 (6 March 2008). At the new trial, held this time before a judge alone rather than a jury, Hillier was acquitted. 16 pforbes v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 45 (12 March 2010); Forbes v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 120 (18 May 2010).
6 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 94 It is a very rare proposition, probably non-existent in our law outside statute that evidence is admissible if corroborated but not if it is not. Why does the existence of some other evidence, for example, if your client had been seen nearby 10 minutes earlier apparently innocently engaged, why does that suddenly make all this other evidence fit to go to a jury and be the basis of a conclusion of guilt? However, the Court dismissed the application without specifically ruling on whether there was a legal principle such as the one contended for by the applicant, to the effect that there is a particular class of evidence, DNA evidence, which regardless of its particular content, should be held legally insufficient to support a conclusion that a disputed proposition of fact is established beyond reasonable doubt. 17 The general principle to be extracted from the Hillier, Forbes and Aytugrul cases, as enunciated by the High Court, appears to be that DNA evidence attracts no special rules of evidence that would differentiate it from other elements of a circumstantial criminal case. In particular: DNA evidence is to be assessed in the context of all the admissible evidence in the proceeding, and not in isolation (Hillier); 18 There is no legal rule to the effect that a person cannot be convicted using a DNA match as the central element connecting him or her to the crime scene (Forbes); 19 and Logically equivalent presentations of the statistical aspects of DNA match evidence, properly explained, cannot be differentially treated as unfairly prejudicial or as 17 This characterisation of the applicant s contention was framed by Hayne J, with counsel for the applicant agreeing with its terms. The application for special leave was decided on the basis that the defence at trial had acquiesced in the presentation of the DNA match probability in qualitative terms ( strong or extremely strong ) rather than quantitative terms ( greater than 1 in 10 billion ), and that this had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice: Forbes v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 120 (18 May 2010). See also Ligertwood, above n 2, 530, which states that the 1 in 10 billion figure was not advanced at trial or the first appeal, and made its first appearance in the High Court proceeding. 18 It is worth noting in this regard that the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) considered, in its 2005 Review of the Uniform Evidence Law, whether DNA match evidence was a form of identification evidence, to which special rules including warning provisions do attach under Part 3.9 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth, NSW). The ALRC concluded that DNA match evidence was not identification evidence as defined in the Act: Australian Law Reform Commission, Uniform Evidence Law, ALRC Report No. 102, [13.17]-[13.34]). 19 The shorthand suggestion of a DNA alone prosecution case is in reality somewhat fanciful, given that no prosecutor would seriously consider trying a case with literally no evidence besides a DNA inclusion. Rather, what is denoted is that class of cases where the DNA evidence provides the only positive link between the accused and the crime scene. Given the High Court s comments, it is doubtful that even Forbes falls within this special class.
7 Canberra Law Review (2012) 11(1) 95 misleading or confusing merely because of a perceived difference in their persuasive force (Aytugrul). 20 With these considerations established, the Australian justice system can have somewhat greater confidence in the admissibility of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings. 20 Important to note is that all members of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court in Aytugrul appeared to accept that the exclusion percentage (99.9%) and the frequency ratio (1 in 1 600) had equal (nonzero) probative value. Where there was some disagreement was on the question whether, this being so, the two variants could carry different risks of unfair prejudice. The better view is arguably that such a proposition impermissibly involves slicing up what is in reality a single piece of evidence into two illusory halves: Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15, [64] (Heydon J).
SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE
SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE David Hodgson The need to identify persons by their voices arises from time to time in legal proceedings, particularly in criminal proceedings. A witness may
More informationExcluding Admissions
Excluding Admissions (Handout) Arjun Chhabra, Solicitor Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited Central South Eastern Region Conference Saturday 2 May 2015 Purpose My talk is on excluding admissions
More informationUPDATES ON CHILDREN S CRIMINAL LAW ISSUES
UPDATES ON CHILDREN S CRIMINAL LAW ISSUES CHILDREN S LEGAL SERVICE CONFERENCE, 24 SEPTEMBER 2011 CLARION HOTEL, PARRAMATTA This paper will endeavour to cover some recent updates in criminal law regarding
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 3: The Criminal Justice System and Criminal Procedure
The following is a suggested solution to the problem question on page 63. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2012 v No. 301700 Huron Circuit Court THOMAS LEE O NEIL, LC No. 10-004861-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook Second Edition Chapter 3: The Criminal Justice System and Criminal Procedure
The following is a suggested solution to the problem question on page 69. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions
More informationPROPOSED REFORMS TO JUDGE-ALONE TRIALS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
251 MANU JAIRETH [(2011) PROPOSED REFORMS TO JUDGE-ALONE TRIALS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY MANU JAIRETH POSTSCRIPT: On 17 February 2011 the ACT Government introduced the Criminal Proceedings Legislation
More informationTake the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]:
Implications of IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 Stephen Odgers The High Court has determined (by a 4:3 majority) that a trial judge, in assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of a number
More informationEvidence Law is a form of adjectival law (meaning procedural law; relating closely to civil and criminal procedure
Evidence Law is a form of adjectival law (meaning procedural law; relating closely to civil and criminal procedure About the proof of facts before courts and tribunals Best understood in the context of
More informationLAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes
LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes Important Provisions to Keep in Mind... 2 Voir Dire... 2 Adducing of Evidence Ch 2 Evidence Act... 4 Calling Witnesses... 8 Examination of witnesses... 11 Cross-Examination...
More informationSUBMISSION TO THE SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Committee Secretary Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Department of the Senate Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia Email: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
More informationSOME KEY CONCEPTS IN FOR CIVIL PRACTIONERS
SOME KEY CONCEPTS IN THE EVIDENCE ACT 2008 FOR CIVIL PRACTIONERS Author: Elizabeth Ruddle Date: 24 October, 2014 Copyright 2014 This work is copyright. Apart from any permitted use under the Copyright
More informationStubley v. Western Australia, [2011] HCA 7, (2011) 275 A.L.R. 451 (March 30, 2011) High Court of Australia Evidence Bad character Propensity
J.C.C.L. Case Notes 317 EVIDENCE OF PROPENSITY AND IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES Stubley v. Western Australia, [2011] HCA 7, (2011) 275 A.L.R. 451 (March 30, 2011) High Court of Australia Evidence Bad character
More informationTendency Evidence Post-Hughes
Tendency Evidence Post-Hughes Scott Johns SC and Christopher Wareham Holmes List Barristers and Gorman Chambers 1. Statutory Framework 1.1 Section 97 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ( the Evidence Act )
More informationv No Livingston Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 27, 2018 v No. 336685 Livingston Circuit Court JUSTIN MICHAEL BAILEY,
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES YOUNG LAWYERS CLE ANNUAL ONE DAY SEMINAR Criminal Law. Criminal Law Update
THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES YOUNG LAWYERS 2012 CLE ANNUAL ONE DAY SEMINAR Criminal Law Criminal Law Update The Honourable Justice R A Hulme Date 25 February 2012 CONTENTS Appeals 1 Evidence 3 Legislation
More informationEXCLUDING EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 137 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1995
EXCLUDING EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 137 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1995 "Like other sections of the Evidence Act, s.137 calls upon a judge to compare essentially incommensurable considerations: probative value
More informationWORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING
NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR OHS REGULATION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING Work Health and Safety Briefing In this Briefing This Work Health and Safety Briefing presents three key cases. The cases have
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 4, 2014 v No. 313482 Macomb Circuit Court HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, LC No. 2012-000892-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE JERSEY LAW COMMISSION
THE JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 3/2008/CP December 2008 The Jersey Law Commission was set up by a Proposition
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR
More informationJustice Committee. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Written submission from Victim Support Scotland
Justice Committee Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill Written submission from Victim Support Scotland INTRODUCTION 1. Victim Support Scotland welcomes the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
More informationEvidence. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW. 1.3 Taking Objections
Evidence 1. Introduction 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, 26-29 1.2 Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW Uniform Evidence Law ALRC Evidence Interim and Final Reports would be useful for interpreting
More informationDNA References. Chapter 12 of Forensic Evidence in Canada, Second Edition
CML 3193 Forensic Science DNA References Textbook Chapter 12 of Forensic Evidence in Canada, Second Edition Criminal Code Sections 487.04 to 487.091, but in particular note: 487.04 Definitions and Lists
More informationWhat s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct
John Rubin UNC School of Government April 2010 What s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct Issues Theories Character directly in issue Character as circumstantial
More informationUniversity of Southern Queensland
Arthur Conan Doyle s Critics of Circumstantial Evidence in His Detective Novel, The Boscombe Valley Mystery, and The Law of Circumstantial Evidence in Australia Tung Ho Introduction If an evidence, by
More informationHearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect
Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect Don Mathias Barrister, Auckland Hearsay confessions In order to raise a reasonable doubt about the accused s guilt, the defence may seek to call
More informationJones v Dunkel in the criminal trial witnesses other than the accused
Jones v Dunkel in the criminal trial witnesses other than the accused By Nick Boyden* Recent authorities severely limit the availability of a Jones v Dunkel direction against a silent accused in a criminal
More informationThe forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues
The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues A guide to the Report 01 The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has published a Report, The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues. It considers the
More informationWhere did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay).
INTRODUCTION: Where did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay). Courts deal with serious business. The law of evidence excludes
More information10/11/ :28 PM. 768 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XLIV:767
Criminal Law Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Fails to Require Statistical Analysis for Nonexclusion DNA Test Results Commonwealth v. Mattei, 920 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010) Massachusetts grants judges
More informationSwain v Waverley Municipal Council
[2005] HCA 4 (High Court of Australia) (relevant to Chapter 6, under new heading Role of Judge and Jury, on p 256) In a negligence trial conducted before a judge and jury, questions of law are decided
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE Matter No S313/2013 DO YOUNG (AKA ASON) LEE APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Matter No S314/2013 SEONG WON LEE APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN
More informationTRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE
TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE A paper prepared for the Legal Aid Annual Criminal Law Conference 2014 Slade Howell 1 & Daniel Covington 2 The operation of the general principles have a significance
More informationDOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE IN CHIEF FUNDAMENTALS AND PRACTICAL ADVICE. A paper presented to the Legal Aid NSW Criminal Law Conference 2017
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVIDENCE IN CHIEF FUNDAMENTALS AND PRACTICAL ADVICE A paper presented to the Legal Aid NSW Criminal Law Conference 2017 Slade Howell Forbes Chambers 1 Part 4B of Chapter 6 of the Criminal
More informationUNIFORM EVIDENCE by Jeremy Gans and Andrew Palmer (2010) Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 398pp, IBSN
Books UNIFORM EVIDENCE by Jeremy Gans and Andrew Palmer (2010) Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 398pp, IBSN 978-0- 195-56729-8 MIIKO KUMAR It has been over 15 years since the uniform evidence
More informationCircuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018
Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K-17-005202 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 201 September Term, 2018 KHEVYN ARCELLE SHARP v. STATE OF MARYLAND Fader C.J., Leahy,
More informationFAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA JANSSEN & JANSSEN [2016] FamCA 345 FAMILY LAW EVIDENCE Admissibility Admissibility of audio recordings made by the mother of exchanges between the parties in circumstances where
More informationCan jury trial innovations. improved jurors understanding. evidence?
Can jury trial innovations improve juror understanding of DNA evidence? Innovations such as checklists and note taking have the potential to improve jurors comprehension of mtdna and other scientific evidence.
More informationT A S M A N I A LAW REFORM I N S T I T U T E
T A S M A N I A LAW REFORM I N S T I T U T E Evidence Act 2001 Sections 97, 98 & 101 and Hoch s case: Admissibility of Tendency and Coincidence Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases with Multiple Complainants
More informationEvidence Act 2001 Sections 97, 98 & 101 and Hoch s
Evidence Act 2001 Sections 97, 98 & 101 and Hoch s case: Admissibility of Tendency and Coincidence Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases with Multiple Complainants FINAL REPORT NO 16 FEBRUARY 2012 CONTENTS
More informationTAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW
TAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW DR MURRAY WESSON * I INTRODUCTION In Tajjour v New South Wales, 1 the High Court considered
More informationSupreme Court of New South Wales Annual Conference
Supreme Court of New South Wales Annual Conference Criminal Law Update The Honourable Justice R A Hulme 20 August 2011 CONTENTS Appeals 1 Defences 5 Evidence 7 Legislation 11 Offences 14 Practice and Procedure
More informationS V THE QUEEN [VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER*
[VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER* Difficulties commonly arise for the Crown in the prosecution of assault cases, particularly of a sexual nature, where the complainant is unable to specify particular acts of the
More informationLAW OF EVIDENCE. LEC Summer 2017/2018 Week 4 Documentary and Real Evidence. A. Kuklik.
1 LAW OF EVIDENCE LEC Summer 2017/2018 Week 4 Documentary and Real Evidence 2. FORMS OF EVIDENCE This Week 2 (2) Documentary evidence (3) Real evidence Topic: The form in which the contents of documents
More informationLIMITS TO STATE PARLIAMENTARY POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH?
129 LIMITS TO STATE PARLIAMENTARY POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH? SIMON KOZLINA * AND FRANCOIS BRUN ** Case citation; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181;
More informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Introduction 1.1 The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Dustin has been charged with participating
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August 30, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1828 ROBERT ROY MACOMBER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews
More informationThe Uniform Evidence Act and the Anunga Rules: Accommodation or Annihilation? Les McCrimmon*
The Uniform Evidence Act and the Anunga Rules: Accommodation or Annihilation? By Les McCrimmon* Introduction In 2006, the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee s (NTLRC) Report on the Uniform Evidence
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DESMOND D. SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-2489 [ September 20, 2018 ] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
More informationExamination of witnesses
Examination of witnesses Rules and procedures in the courtroom for eliciting (getting information) from witnesses Most evidence in our legal system is verbal. A person conveying their views and beliefs,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 24, 2009 v No. 282098 Oakland Circuit Court JOHN ALLEN MIHELCICH, LC No. 2007-213588-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 BETWEEN: JAVIER RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 by S. and Michael MARPER against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting
More informationBashing Cunning Constables, Torching ERISP Interviews
Bashing Cunning Constables, Torching ERISP Interviews An Anarchist s Guide to Section 84 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) March 2017 Edition He s a very cunning constable your Honour! Defence submission
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 4, 2015 v No. 321381 Bay Circuit Court ABDULAI BANGURAH, LC No. 13-010179-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Coss [2016] QCA 44 PARTIES: R v COSS, Michael Joseph (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 111 of 2015 DC No 113 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice HARRY STEPHEN CAPRIO OPINION BY v. Record No. 962090 SENIOR JUSTICE RICHARD H. POFF October 31, 1997 COMMONWEALTH
More informationDOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL
DOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.2 of the Parliament s Standing Orders, this Financial Memorandum is published to accompany the Domestic Abuse
More information:^i TRIAL CHAMBER III SITUATION IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR V. JEAN-PIERRE BEMBA GOMBO. Public
ICC-01/05-01/08-2399 31-10-2012 1/20 EO T Cour Pénale Internationale International Criminal Court :^i Original: English No.: ICC-01/05-01/08 Date: 30 October 2012 TRIAL CHAMBER III Before: Judge Sylvia
More informationUNIFORM EVIDENCE LAW GUIDEBOOK
UNIFORM EVIDENCE LAW GUIDEBOOK JOHN ANDERSON AND ANTHONY HOPKINS CHAPTER 2: PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS ASSESSMENT PREPARATION (PP 35-37) REVIEW PROBLEMS ADDITIONAL NOTES Case 1 (a) Facts in issue: Existence
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MARLON JOEL GRIMES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-127 [June 6, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018 Effective July 1, 1975, as amended to Dec. 1, 2017 The goal of this 2018 edition of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1 is to provide the practitioner with a convenient copy
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY
Terri Wood, OSB #88332 Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 730 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 97402 541-484-4171 Attorney for John Doe IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2005 v No. 256560 Isabella Circuit Court STEPHEN DOUGLAS BANFIELD, LC No. 03-000907-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationLIMITATIONS ON EXECUTIVE POWER FOLLOWING WILLIAMS V COMMONWEALTH
LIMITATIONS ON EXECUTIVE POWER FOLLOWING WILLIAMS V COMMONWEALTH ERIK SDOBER * The recent High Court decision of Williams v Commonwealth was significant in delineating limitations on Federal Executive
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC03-1554 PER CURIAM. HENRY P. SIRECI, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 28, 2005] Henry P. Sireci seeks review of a circuit court order denying his motion
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence/Remedies And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Green s Grocery Outlet
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
On review from a committal to stand trial on a charge of second degree murder by a preliminary inquiry judge dated September 13, 2017. Date: 20180302 Docket: CR 17-01-36388 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 16, 2003 v No. 240738 Oakland Circuit Court JOSE RAFAEL TORRES, LC No. 2001-181975-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O)
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O) 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE & MANGOTA JJ HARARE, 9 & 23 October 2014 Criminal Appeal T Madzingira,
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationSupreme Court significantly revised the framework for determining the. 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), in light of current scientific research and adopt[ed]
I. The Oregon Evidence Code provides the first barrier to the admission of eyewitness identification evidence, and the proponent bears to burden to establish the admissibility of the evidence. In State
More informationSee, Cornett v. City of Omaha Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 266 Neb. 216, 664 N.W.2d 23 (2003); Schuelke v. Wilson, 255 Neb. 726, 587 N.W.2d 369 (1998).
774 280 nebraska reports litigant s position. 14 The term frivolous connotes an improper motive or legal position so wholly without merit as to be ridiculous. 15 Any doubt about whether a legal position
More informationUNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before CAMPANELLA, SALUSSOLIA, and FLEMING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Major ANTIWAN HENNING United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20160572
More informationJan Bikker. QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Question 1: The interpretation of bioinformation
Jan Bikker QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Question 1: The interpretation of bioinformation The probability of a chance match between unrelated individuals using SGM+ is on average less than one in a billion. Although
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2008 v No. 276504 Allegan Circuit Court DAVID ALLEN ROWE, II, LC No. 06-014843-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0074, State of New Hampshire v. Christopher Slayback, the court on November 18, 2015, issued the following order: The defendant, Christopher Slayback,
More informationChapter 4 Types of Evidence
Chapter 4 Types of Evidence Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Health Services Union v Jackson (No 2) [2015] FCA 670 Citation: Health Services Union v Jackson (No 2) [2015] FCA 670 Parties: v KATHERINE JACKSON; KATHERINE JACKSON v HEALTH
More informationPenalties for sexual assault offences
Submission of the NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES to the NSW Sentencing Council s review of Penalties for sexual assault offences 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...2 2. STATUTORY MAXIMUM AND STANDARD
More informationcase note on Bui v dpp (Cth) - the high court considers double Jeopardy in sentencing appeals
case note on Bui v dpp (Cth) - the high court considers double Jeopardy in sentencing appeals dr gregor urbas* i introduction in its first decision of the year, handed down on 9 february 2012, the high
More informationEvidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions
Evidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions Barbara Figari Illinois Conference for Students of Political Science 1 Criminal cases are
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
1 FOR PUBLICATION? I 'f I r,l t 5/ 2 -"\1 i 3 4 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Plaintiff,
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 3, 2015 105435 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCOTT
More informationTort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration
Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration Immigration Law Conference, Sydney 24-25 February 2017 1. The focus of immigration law practitioners
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kelly [2018] QCA 307 PARTIES: R v KELLY, Mark John (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 297 of 2017 DC No 1924 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of
More informationSOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION INTRODUCTION
900 UNSW Law Journal Volume 32(3) SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION THE HON JUSTICE KEVIN LINDGREN * I INTRODUCTION I have been asked to write about some current practical issues
More information- against- Indictment No.: Defendant.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-19 P R E S E N T: HON. SEYMOUR ROTKER, Justice. -----------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 CLIFTON OBRYAN WATERS STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1640 September Term, 2014 CLIFTON OBRYAN WATERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Woodward, Kehoe, Arthur, JJ. Opinion by Kehoe, J. Filed: March 3, 2016 *This
More informationSTIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine
STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No. 09-3031 State of New Maine Instruction Number Instruction Description 1. Preliminary Instructions 2. Functions of
More informationNew South Wales Supreme Court
State Crest New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : HEARING DATE(S) : JUDGMENT DATE : JURISDICTION: CORVETINA TECHNOLOGY LTD v CLOUGH ENGINEERING LTD [2004] NSWSC 700 revised - 17/08/2004 29/07/2004 (judgment
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 8, 2007 v No. 267567 Wayne Circuit Court DAMAINE GRIFFIN, LC No. 05-008537-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSupreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal
[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal >> 2008 >> [2008] QCA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2012 v No. 303721 Genesee Circuit Court JOSEPHUS ATCHISON, LC No. 10-027141-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More information