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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 8 Witnesses— Competency and Perjury.
Advertisements

Competence and Compellability in Criminal Proceedings (YJ&CEA 1999)
Use of Prior Statements, Depositions and Corollary Proceedings: Searing Impeachment and Effective Rehabilitation FITZPATRICK,
Prior Statements By Testifying Witnesses 801(d)(1)
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE Chap Impeachment2 DEFINITION AND METHODS IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO WEAKEN THE PERCEIVED.
AJ 104 Chapter 1 Introduction.
Criminal Justice 2011 Chapter 18: Preparation for Court Criminal Investigation The Art and the Science by Michael D. Lyman Copyright 2011.
Criminal Trial Adversarial System Trial Initiation
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 2 LAW 12 MUNDY
Hearsay and Its Exceptions
Standard 11: Criminal Trial Procedures I can identify and describe the standard procedures in a criminal jury trial.
Common Trial Procedures United States. Opening Statements.
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.
Testimony of Witnesses
Chapter 10 The Criminal Trial
TRIAL INFORMATION Steps, vocabulary.
 Judge  Prosecutor  Defense Attorney 2 Copyright Texas Education Agency (TEA)
 Generates competition between Crown and defence  Aim of both is to seek justice  Crown- Burden of proof is on the Crown to “prove case beyond a reasonable.
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.
Chapter 13 Testifying in Court. Testifying in Court  To effectively testify in court:  Be prepared.  Look professional.  Act professionally.  Attempts.
Assessing Credibility. Assessing Credibility is the substance of most trials. Credibility = Honesty + Reliability.
Criminal Evidence 7th Edition
Chapter 20 Writing Reports, Preparing for and Presenting Cases in Court.
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”
+ Rules & Types of Evidence. + Rules of Evidence During a trial, either the Crown or the defence may object to questions asked by the opposing attorney.
STEPS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. 1. OPENING STATEMENTS PROSECUTION ALWAYS GOES FIRST DEFENSE CAN DELAY UNTIL THEY BEGIN THEIR CASE. WHY? INTRODUCTION THIS IS.
Basic Evidence and Trial Procedure. Opening Statement  Preview the evidence “The evidence will show”  Introduce theme  Briefly describe the issues,
 WATCH THE VIDEO CLIP, THEN GO TO THE WEB SITE WRITE DOWN WHAT’s THE MOST IMPORTANCE PART OF THE TRIAL AND TELL WHY. 
ADVANCED DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION Module 2. Organization Of Discussion  Direct examination techniques  Refreshing recollection, past recollection.
Types of Evidence – Viva Voce Our system is heavily reliant on oral testimony which is the norm. Practice point, always try to find a witness who can speak.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3 RULES AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE LAW 12 MUNDY
Twelve Angry Men By: Reginald Rose. Discussion What is a jury? How is it chosen? What responsibility does an individual have to accept jury duty? How.
Unit 6 The Trial: Players, Motions, Hearings, and Pleas Or I am getting my day in court.
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.
1 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Learning Domain PURPOSE FOR THE RULES OF EVIDENCE Protect the jury from seeing or hearing evidence that is: (w/b p. 1-3)
1 Chapter 5 Witnesses and the Testimony of Witnesses Witnesses and the Testimony of Witnesses.
Unit 6  What needs to be done this week SeminarSeminar QuizQuiz Discussion boardDiscussion board Unit 9 Analysis and ApplicationUnit 9 Analysis and Application.
“ Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Criminal Evidence Chapter Eight: Witnesses This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright 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.
CIVIL TRIAL FROM START TO FINISH: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO TRYING A CIVIL CASE IN ARIZONA Richard K. Mahrle Dennis I. Wilenchik.
The Trial Civ Lit I: Unit 9. 2 Preparing for Trial.
CJ305 Criminal Evidence Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 3 (Chapter 5 – Witnesses -- Lay & Expert) (Chapter 6 – Credibility.
Mock Trial Team Strategies and Formalities. Opening Statements 3 minutes Objective – Acquaint court with the case and outline what you are going to prove.
 Miller and Boster (1977) have identified three images of the trial: ◦ 1) The Trial as a Search for the Truth Assumes the truth can be ascertained, and.
HEARSAY! BY MICHAEL JOHNSON. COMMON LAW DEFINITION “ An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted”
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.
The Courts. The Criminal Justice System has three major components: Police Courts Corrections Each plays an important role in the system and all three.
Introduction to Criminal Justice 2003:
Chapter 1 Structure of the Trial & Presentation of Evidence
Criminal Trial Process
The Criminal Trial Process
HEARSAY DEFINITIONS [RULE 801, PARED DOWN].
OBJECTIONS.
How Witnesses are Examined
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
Who may impeach a Witness
Steps in a Trial.
The Court System A Trial.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 2
The Court System A Trial.
Character Evidence Rules - In General
Criminal Trial Process
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE 2010.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3
Law 12 Criminal Trial Process.
Presentation transcript:

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 for the admissibility of evidence. Presumption: all witnesses, regardless of age, are presumed competent to testify. Burden of proof falls to the side opposing the witness (prosecution or defense) to prove incompetency.

Tests for Competency: 1) ability to observe & perceive. 2) ability to recall and narrate. 3) ability to understand the duty to tell the truth. Note: when challenged, determined through voir dire examination (see text for examples).

Witnesses with Possible Competency Problems: 1) Young Children: in CA, a child of any age can testify. However, the younger the child, the more likely the child will be unable to meet the three prong test for competency. 2) Senility: of one’s mental faculties have deteriorated with age or disorder, i.e., senile dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, a person could be proven incompetent to testify.

CHILD WITNESS child was an eyewitness as he watched his mother being systematically tortured to death by his father. for two days, (d) repeatedly beat her with a golf club, baseball bat, a chunk of wood, and stabbed her with scissors.

CHILD WITNESS 4 year old witnessed his father stab an 18 year old photo booth employee to death during a robbery. “I saw him stick a knife into her stomach and she yelled very loud!”.

3) Physically Handicapped: a blind or deaf person is limited in the type of testimony that he/she can give. 4) Mental Defect or Disorder: persons who are mentally incapacitated or insane persons are not competent witnesses. Note: a developmentally disabled person can be a competent witness if he/she can meet the 3 prong test.

5) Foreign Speaking Persons: may not be able to narrate in English. The law provides for the appointment of a qualified interpreter. 6) Hypnotized Persons: in CA, persons who have been hypnotized are incompetent to testify as to any information recalled during or after hypnosis. Note: investigators can use facts recalled under hypnosis to investigate.

Credibility: is the weight given to witness testimony by the trier of fact (the believability of the testimony). CA Jury Instructions direct the trier of fact to weigh the credibility of a witness’s testimony according to:  The length of time the witness had to observe the alleged criminal act and suspect  The stress, if any, to which the witness was subject at the time of the observation (see text for more).

Impeachment: to attack the credibility of a witness. Accomplished either by:  Cross or re-cross examination  Introduction of rebuttal evidence Common Grounds for Impeachment: 1.Physical / mental state of the witness: affects the ability of a witness to accurately recall, communicate, etc. 2.Bias, Interest, or Other Motive: normally the witness testimony must be corroborated with other evidence.

 Financial Interest: a witness may financially benefit from a guilty verdict.  Relationship to a Party in the Case: Family member, fellow gang member  Prior declarations of hostility by the witness 3.Character Evidence:  general reputation (pro or con) for truthfulness, honesty, etc.  prior felony conviction involving moral turpitude or willingness to do evil.

4. Manner of Testimony:  Prior inconsistent statements or testimony  Bias or demeanor of testimony towards the prosecution or defense  Admission of untruthfulness  Conduct of an investigation

Rehabilitation: to restore or bolster the credibility of a witness and it takes place either:  During redirect examination – by bringing in new facts or clarifying answers from previous testimony  By introducing corroborating evidence through another witness which reinforces prior testimony