The Criminal Law focus prepares college students for a number of successful careers within the legal justice discipline, including as prosecutors, protection attorneys, and policymakers. Writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective help of counsel: trial counsel had battle of interest where counsel, himself convicted of murder in a infamous court case, continued to follow legislation while taking attraction and represented petitioner at trial with out taking any precautions to ensure that jurors did not maintain lawyer’s conviction against his consumer.
You may discover articles on self-protection and stand your floor laws, the differences between felonies and misdemeanors, the position of the jury in a legal trial, the steps from being charged to going to trial, and how civil suits differ from prison cases.
Below the Mannequin Penal Code check, an individual shouldn’t be liable for criminal conduct if, on the time of such conduct, he or she lacks the capacity either to understand the criminality or the wrongfulness of the conduct, or to conform his or her conduct to the requirement of law.
Three years after alleged felony act, State charged client with sexual assault in the second diploma (statutory rape), which carries mandatory 9 month prison sentence and which …
Often in a criminal trial, an attempt will be made to bring up evidence of someone’s past convictions, their good or bad character or their credibility as a witness.
The rule concerning credibility is provided for in s102 of the Evidence Act (“the act”) which provides that ‘credibility evidence about a witness is not admissible’. S103 of the act creates an exception to the credibility rule where the evidence is adduced in cross-examination and the evidence “could substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of the witness”.
At times this rule is strictly enforced. In the case of State Rail Authority of NSW v Brown (2006) 66 NSWLR 540 a train passenger was injured when his train collided with another train. At the hearing he argued that, amongst many other injuries sustained in the accident, he sustained damage to his teeth. However, the cross examination sought to ask questions about his previous dental injuries and evidence of prior inconsistent statements given to dentists in order to damage his credibility. The NSW Court of Appeal, applying the rule under s102, held that such questioning was not allowed.
Whilst credibility broadly refers to the likelihood a person is ‘credible’, character …