The Credibility Rule: When, Why and How. Definitions Credibility of a witness means the credibility of any part or all of the evidence of the witness,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evidence: The Courts and the Commission - a comparison Andrew Watson Maurice Blackburn Cashman.
Advertisements

Use of Prior Statements, Depositions and Corollary Proceedings: Searing Impeachment and Effective Rehabilitation FITZPATRICK,
Adducing evidence witnesses Miiko Kumar lecture 2 (17 November 2014)
Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland Royal Courts of Justice, 10 January 2008 Professor J.R.Spencer, QC Lecture on bad character and hearsay.
Randy J. Cox.  F.R.E. 301 is short and vague, with no definition of “presumption.”  Note F.R.E. 302 provides that state law governs the effect of presumptions.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 2 LAW 12 MUNDY
TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE CLASS 9 28 JULY 2014 DANIEL TYNAN – 12 th Floor Wentworth Chambers.
Hearsay and Its Exceptions
Briana Denney, Esq. of Newman & Denney P.C Briana Denney, Esq. of Newman & Denney P.C. E VIDENTIARY I SSUES R ELATING TO F ORENSIC R EPORTS.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS FRE 801(d) Non Hearsay by definition Rule 801(d)(1) Prior Statement by Witness is not hearsay If declarant testifies and.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE Chap Impeachment2 DEFINITION AND METHODS IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO WEAKEN THE PERCEIVED.
The Roles of Judge and Jury Court controls legal rulings in the trial Court controls legal rulings in the trial Jury decides factual issues Jury decides.
CJ227 Criminal Procedure Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 4 (Chapter 9 – Pretrial Motions, Hearings and Pleas) (Chapter.
Character and credit Miiko Kumar 9 February 2015.
Hearsay: Common Law Exceptions Preserved by CJA 2003 s.118 in Criminal Proceedings.
Hearsay Rule Lecture 6, 2014.
TRIAL INFORMATION Steps, vocabulary.
CHAPTER X HEARSAY EVIDENCE. Hearsay Evidence Evidence of a statement that was made other than by the witness while testifying that is offered to prove.
Chapter 7 Competency and Credibility. Competency: A witness is properly able to take the stand and give testimony in court. Competency is the second test.
AJ 104 Chapter 5 Witnesses. 5 Issues Related to a Trial Witness 1. Who is competent to testify 2. How the credibility of a witness is attacked 3. What.
Assessing Credibility. Assessing Credibility is the substance of most trials. Credibility = Honesty + Reliability.
Objections CRIMINAL LAW – UNIT #3. OBJECTIONS An objection:  is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or.
Criminal Evidence 7th Edition
Rules on the Cross- examiner. General. Once a witness is called and sworn he is subject to cross, even if called for the sole purpose of producing a document.
Chapter 20 Writing Reports, Preparing for and Presenting Cases in Court.
Procedure Procedure at Trial. 1) Court Clerk reads the charge Indictment - if vague - quashed (struck down)
Unit 3 Seminar! K. Austin Zimmer Any question from Unit 2! Please make sure you have completed your Unit 1 & 2 Papers!
Criminal Trial Process “Innocent until proven guilty”
Basic Evidence and Trial Procedure. Opening Statement  Preview the evidence “The evidence will show”  Introduce theme  Briefly describe the issues,
A statement by a person who is conscious and knows that death is imminent concerning what he or she believes to be the cause or circumstances of death.
EXCLUSIONS FROM HEARSAY Prior Inconsistent Statement, Prior Consistent Statements, Prior Identifications.
Types of Evidence From Arraignment to Verdict. Self-Incrimination The Canada Evidence Act - regulates rules of evidence (1893). Applies to federal jurisdictions.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3 RULES AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE LAW 12 MUNDY
The Nature of a Hearsay Statement Under The Criminal Justice Act 2003.
LAWS13010 Evidence and Proof Topic 7 – The Rule Against Hearsay.
Evidence in Court Holy Trinity Law Audrius Stonkus.
The Criminal Trial Process Section 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that each person charged with an offence is to be ‘presumed innocent.
Examination-in-Chief. Limitations Relevance to Facts-in-Issue The examiner in chief cannot use leading questions. The examiner in chief cannot, in general,
Nowlin Narrative Continued.. Narrative as an exception to the Rule Against Prior Consistent Statements General PCS rule: inadmissible Why? Witnesses are.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT of WITNESSES
Statements and Confessions
EVIDENCE ACT Law of evidence lay rules for the production of evidence in the court of law.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE Chap Impeachment2 DEFINITION AND METHODS IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO WEAKEN THE PERCEIVED.
What is impeachment? Do Now: What do you think the legal definition of impeachment is? Answer: Process of destroying the credibility of a witness.
Mock Trials Court Systems and Practices. Copyright © Texas Education Agency All rights reserved. Images and other multimedia content used with permission.
Rules on the Examiner in Chief 1: The Rule Against Oath Helping/Bolstering.
PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ
CJ305 Criminal Evidence Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 3 (Chapter 5 – Witnesses -- Lay & Expert) (Chapter 6 – Credibility.
HEARSAY! BY MICHAEL JOHNSON. COMMON LAW DEFINITION “ An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted”
CJ227: Criminal Procedure Unit 6 Seminar Mary K Cronin.
Attorney/Judge. The purpose of opening statements by each side is to tell jurors something about the case they will be hearing. The opening statements.
Comparing the Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems.
MAJOR FEATURES OF THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF TRIAL, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES, THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE, THE NEED FOR THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE,
Mock Trial Rules of Evidence Arkansas Bar Association Mock Trial Committee Anthony L. McMullen, J.D., Vice Chair ( )
WELCOME TO EVIDENCE 2016 Miiko Kumar. What is evidence law about? Where is evidence law from? Where is evidence law now? What are the aims of the laws.
LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 10.
The Criminal Trial Process
Law of Evidence Oral Evidence.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES DOCUMENTS
Impeachment James Harris Sanaz Ossanloo Law 16 Professor Jordan
HEARSAY DEFINITIONS [RULE 801, PARED DOWN].
OBJECTIONS.
Presented by: Sarah Minnery, Barrister
Function of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):
How Witnesses are Examined
Who may impeach a Witness
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 2
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE 2010.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3
Presentation transcript:

The Credibility Rule: When, Why and How

Definitions Credibility of a witness means the credibility of any part or all of the evidence of the witness, and includes the witness’s ability to observe or remember facts and events about which the witness has given, is giving or is to give evidence. Plain language translation: How believable and reliable is (some or all of) the evidence from a witness? Credibility of a person is also defined. Essentially the same definition but applied to an out-of-court representation that has been admitted into evidence.

Evidence can be relevant for MORE than one purpose Evidence can be relevant to: Fact in issue (FII) Excl rule does not arise FII & Credibility Excl rule MIGHT apply Credibility only Excl rule WILL apply

Section 101A: definition of credibility (inserted in reaction to High Court decision in Adam) Credibility evidence, in relation to a witness or other person, is evidence relevant to the credibility of the witness or person that: (a)is relevant only because it affects the assessment of the credibility of the witness or person; or (b)is relevant: (i) because it affects the assessment of the credibility of the witness or person; and (ii) for some other purpose for which it is not admissible, or cannot be used, because of a provision of Parts 3.2 to 3.6.

The effect of s 101A Where evidence is relevant to FII & CRED: If ADMISSIBLE for its FII purpose ↓ Can also be used for its credibility purpose (s 102 does not apply ie not caught by the exclusionary rule) OR If INADMISSIBLE for its FII purpose (eg due to hearsay) ↓ The only allowable use is for credibility purpose s 101A means the exclusionary rule (s 102) will apply ↓ Admissibility will require an exception to the credibility rule

Exceptions to the exclusionary rule Evidence that discredits: a witness during XX: s 103 an accused during XX: s 104 a witness by adducing evidence to rebut a denial of a credibility impeachment: s 106 by adducing evidence from an expert re credibility: s 108C Evidence that accredits: a witness/accused in re-ex & prior consistent statements: s 108 by adducing evidence from an expert re credibility: s 108C Credibility of non-witnesses whose representation has been admitted into evidence: for all people: s 108A for an accused (in addition to s 108A): s 108B

s 103 Exception: XX as to credibility (1)The credibility rule does not apply to evidence adduced in cross-examination of a witness if the evidence could substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of the witness. (2)Without limiting the matters to which the court may have regard for the purposes of subsection (1), it is to have regard to: (a) whether the evidence tends to prove that the witness knowingly or recklessly made a false representation when the witness was under an obligation to tell the truth; and (b) the period that has elapsed since the acts or events to which the evidence relates were done or occurred.

s 104 Further protections: XX the accused (1)Applies in addition to s 103. (2)Leave is to be sought to XX the defendant on a matter relevant to cred (3)Pros do not need leave if XX goes to whether the defendant: (a)Is biased or has a motive for being untruthful, or (b)Is, or was, unable to be aware of or recall matters to which evid relates, or (c)Has made a prior inconsistent statement. (4)Leave not to be given under (2) unless def presented evidence that: (a)tends to prove that a witness called by the pros has a tendency to be untruthful; and (b)is relevant solely or mainly to the witness’s credibility. (5)Ref in (4) does not include evidence of conduct in relation to: (a)events relating to the defendant’s prosecution; or (b)the investigation of the matter being prosecuted. (6)Leave not to be given in relation to a co-accused unless: … NB Section 192

S 106 Exception: rebutting denials with other evidence (1) The credibility rule does not apply to evidence relevant to a witness’s credibility, adduced otherwise than from the witness if: (a)in XX of the witness: (i)the substance of the evidence was put to the witness, & (ii)the witness denied, or did not admit or agree to, the substance of the evidence, & (b)the court gives leave to adduce the evidence. (2) Leave under (1)(b) is not required if the evid tends to prove the W: (a)is biased or has a motive for being untruthful, or (b)has been convicted of an offence, (incl foreign country), or (c)has made a prior inconsistent statement, or (d)is, or was, unable to be aware of matters that his/her evid relates, or (e)has knowingly or recklessly made a false representation while under an obligation, imposed by or under an Australian law or a law of a foreign country, to tell the truth. NB Section 192

Evidence that Discredits Evidence relevant (or admissible) only to credibility ↓ The exclusionary rule deems inadmissible: s 102 ↓ Admiss if the questions substantially affect assessment of the W’s cred: s 103 test Additional protections (and consequences) for accused: s104 ↓ Adduce rebuttal evid from another source if W denies etc the content of the assertion: s106

s 108 Exception: re-establishing credibility (1)The credibility rule does not apply to evidence adduced in re-examination of a witness. (3) The credibility rule does not apply to evidence of a prior consistent statement of a witness if: (a)evidence of a prior inconsistent statement of the witness has been admitted, or (b)it is or will be suggested (either expressly or by implication) that evidence given by the witness has been fabricated or re-constructed (whether deliberately or otherwise) or is the result of a suggestion; and the court gives leave to adduce the evidence of the prior consistent statement. NB Section 192

Evidence that Accredits Evidence relevant (or admissible) only to credibility ↓ The exclusionary rule deems inadmissible: s 102 ↓ During re-examination (RX) questions relating to credibility permissible: s 108(1) And/or Prior consistent statements (PCS) (RX or ex-in-chief): s 108(3)(b) ↓ PCS admiss to rebut a PIS or suggestion of lying ↓ NB Leave required for PCS (s 192)

In summary Does the credibility evidence exclusionary rule apply? Definitions of credibility/credibility evidence: Dictionary When the exclusionary rule will apply: ss 101A and 102 Does the evidence discredit? XX a witness: s 103 XX of an accused: s 104 Evidence to rebut the denial of a witness during XX: s 106 Evidence from an expert re credibility: s 108C Does the evidence accredit? Re-ex & PCS: s 108 Evidence from an expert re credibility: s 108C Does the evidence relate to a rep from a person who has not been called as a witness? All people except the accused: s 108A Additional protections for an accused: s 108B Does the adducing of the evidence require an application for leave? Factors for consideration: s 192