Chapter: One Introduction 1.1 Background: In very common terms‚ hearsay does mean statements or any gossips that one hears from the other source but is not sure whether it is true. However in legal sense it holds rather broader technical sense.1 Hearsay in legal sense is taken as evidence provided by the third party.2 That is to say‚ hearsay evidence is supplied by a person who has not witnessed the incidence directly with his or her own senses. To cite few examples of hearsay evidence‚ A
Premium Law Evidence law Legal burden of proof
Question 1 of 10 10.0/ 10.0 Points The defendant must always prove his or her affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt. True False Answer Key: False Feedback: ch. 5 Question 2 of 10 10.0/ 10.0 Points The prosecution must prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. True False Answer Key: True Feedback: ch. 4 Question 3 of 10 10.0/ 10.0 Points To meet the intent element required for possession‚ a defendant should be aware of the possession. True False
Premium Property law Criminal law Legal burden of proof
Difference between Confession and Admission This brings us to the main difference between admission and confession. An admission is a statement that may or may not be a conclusive evidence of a fact in issue or relevant fact but to be a confession‚ the admission must conclusively prove the guilt of the maker of the admission. For example‚ in the case of Veera Ibrahim vs State of Maharashtra‚ AIR 1976‚ a person being prosecuted under Customs Act told the customs officer that he did not know that
Premium Criminal law Legal burden of proof Jurisdiction
[2013] MLJU 271 Kamalan a/l Shaik Mohd v Pendakwa Raya HIGH COURT (PULAU PINANG) YA ZAMANI BIN A RAHIM J RAYUAN JENAYAH NO 41A-51-05/2012 18 March 2013 Ismail bin Mohamad (Tamil Salvan Tenappan with him) (T Tenappan & Co) for the appellant. Suhaimi bin Ibrahim (Charanjit Singh a/l Mahinder Singh with him) (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the prosecution. YA Zamani Bin A Rahim J: GROUNDS OF DECISION [1] The appellant‚ a police sergeant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was
Premium Law Criminal law Legal burden of proof
A Sound of Thunder Trial We’re putting Eckles on trial! Does Eckles deserve to be punished for his crimes against humanity? The characters: * Eckles *Travis * Man behind the desk (Both before and after the travel) *Lesperance *Hunter Write your statement to the police. What do you know? What did you see? Make sure to take on your character’s attitude and viewpoints in your statement. Extra credit will be given to the student that best embodies his/her character’s persona and perspective during the
Premium Sentence Question Evidence law
Seth Turner Professor Wilson Speech 22 April 2013 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men is a filmed based on the theme of reasonable doubt. A jury of twelve men are chosen to determine whether the eighteen year old boy killed his father or not. The initial evidence that includes two eye witnesses would suggest that this case is a closed decision and they boy will surely be found guilty. The jury does not take long before coming to a vote ending in 11 votes for guilty 1 vote for non guilty. The man who voted
Premium Jury Man Witness
Additionally‚ while completing court observations I had the opportunity to sit in on three separate criminal trials. The first trial I sat in on was a case involving sexual assault where the defendant was accused of “violating of the sexual integrity” (Arcaro‚ 2009‚ p.151) while she was sleeping. Due to the sensitive nature of the case‚ a publication ban was put in place. The judge allowed us to sit in on the case‚ but made aware to the students sitting in that we were not to publish any names or
Premium Witness Crime Police
Wills Section 77-Capacity * 18 or have been married * of sound disposing mind (Banks v Goodfellow) * Courts have established principles to determine sound disposing mind. * must prove testator had animus testandi i.e intention to make disposition of property to be effective upon death. * Matter for court to decide whether will of free and capable testator * English position gave significant leeway to testator: Bird v Luckie: Wigram VC‚ testator is not bound to make will
Premium Capital punishment Legal burden of proof Witness
Abigail Alcoser & Clement Chun CJC English March 6th‚ 2015 Assignment (Analysis Essay) In the essay “Give Drugs to Addicts So We Can Be Safe”‚ by Jonah J. Goldstein‚ he does not effectively argue his point and convinces the reader‚ since he uses false comparisons‚ makes inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence‚ and bad assumptions. Johan J. Goldstein tries to affect the reader emotionally but he fails to use it properly. Instead of balancing the emotions of the readers he makes
Premium Drug addiction Hasty generalization Inductive reasoning
Ilyich Lenin resulted in the Bolsheviks being the new leaders of Russia. Among all this confusion‚ Russia’s participation in World War I proved to be another problem. By the end of 1916 over 14 million men had been mobilized in the empire. The heaviest burden fell on the peasantry. The demands of war drastically reduced the number of draft animals on the land; most plants responsible for
Premium Russia Vladimir Lenin Soviet Union