Evidence Law and Practice Critique - Coursework Example

Chapter CHAPTER Problem 13-8; On the Tube:”Barb-Accuse Based on the episode given, Alison entered in his parent’s backyard, and family friends were also present, including the judge. Daddy ordered Alison to leave because he doesn’t belong there. Alison seems to be furious and shout in a loud voice to his father whether he wanted to do an illegal thing that he used to do to him and Meredith. Alison father remained Silent. Student 1: As a prosecutor, my argument to substantiate my position that the trial judge should admit Alison statement is admissible may be based on the Rule 104(a) and (b).Alison father was silent. Therefore, based on this rule it is clear evidence that Daddy was guilty of doing an illegal thing to Alison and Meredith (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Student 2: As a defence Attorney, my arguments against allegations made by Alison to my client, Daddy, do not hold substantial ground for accusation. Alison does not have any prove to show that Daddy was guilty. Daddy was silent because he did not want to create an embarrassing scene in the presence of the visitors by arguing with his son, Alison. Student 3: As a judge my ruling on this case is that under Rule 104.The accused has the burden of proving innocent. If he/she remains silent, it is an indication that one is guilty. The burden consists of the following elements namely; the accused must hear the statement and understand it. The statement must be within the party’s personal knowledge. Finally, the accused party must deny the allegations if they are not true. In this case, Daddy was guilty because he violated all the above burden of proof (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Problem 13-9; I Wanna Hold Your Hand (off cards) The facts as presented are that Paul is a prosecution witness in a robbery charge against his friend John whom together with George and Ringo, typically played a game of poker together. It is during one of the poker game sessions that Paul teased John on a rumor that was circulated that he had engaged in a bank robbery incident. Paul requests for a share of the loot, but John is mute about it. The prosecutor seeks to rely on John’s silence as proof of guilt. The accused is cross-examined by both counsels (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Student 1: As the defense attorney, the other foundational I would seek to establish are whether in teasing each other while playing the soccer games do the guys put more emphasis on the truth of every allegation? If the answer is to the negative is there normally an intention to spoil one another’s reputation as a friend? What is the reputation of John in the society? Did Paul have any personal vendetta with John to warrant such a grave allegation? How has their relationship as friends been over the preceding few days? Is John usually amused with rumor mongering? These questions would enlighten the jury of the possibility that John is typically not delighted with rumor mongering. They touch on his dignity and otherwise good reputation. Due to the violation of his dignity he decided to ignore Paul to put an end such a debate (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Student 2: As the prosecutor I would invoke the express provisions of rule 80(1) (d) which is unequivocal. It does not distinguish whether the reputation of the accused is good or not in the public eyes. The same should be interpreted strictly. I would therefore not redirect Paul on the conduct of John as the same is irrelevant. Student 3: As the judge, I would stick to the strict provisions of the law. I will hold that the question of the reputation of the accused person is irrelevant in the circumstances and as such the evidence is inadmissible. Student 4: Being the witness, John, I would issue a rejoinder to the question by saying that I am typically not amused by rumours. My stakes in the game were so high that I opted to concentrate on the game rather that cheap rumours elicited by my friend Paul (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Problem 13-10: Silent right. Beverly has been arrested and charged with selling illegal drugs on her apartment. The prosecution relies on of Beverly’s to prove their case in that Danny who was present during the arrest told Beverly to agree that the drugs were indeed his. However, Beverly remained mute on the issue. Does silence establish a sufficient foundation for Danny’s statement (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015)? Insight; Based on Federal Laws and other doctrines of common law, where a party’s silence or conduct then that evidence is admissible in Courts of law against the silent person (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Therefore, Beverly’s behaviour in light of Dannys statement squarely fit the provisions of rule 80 (1) (d) 2 (B). Hence, they are admissible, and the prosecution is allowed to rely on such to prove their case against Beverly (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Problem 13-16: Way out Way moves to Court to seeking compensation for breach of contract against his former team Denver Buncos. He bases his argument that the team unlawfully terminated his contract on reasons that Strike, who is a players union representative, gave reports to the press. However, Way denies having authorized Strike to make such statements on his behalf, even though, both of them were seen conversing shortly before the issuance of the statement. Task A by Student 1: Conducting a mini-trial as Buncos Attorney (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Student 1: Attorney: Inform the Court your full names and your relationship with the Plaintiff. Strike: My name is Les Strike, and I am a Player, Union representative. Attorney: Is the Plaintiff a member of the union you represent? Strike: Yes, sure. Attorney: Going by your duties, are you mandated to speak on behalf players and particularly the plaintiff on matters to do with appearances? Strike: Yes sure. Attorney: Should you consult with the relevant person before speaking to the press on issues concerning them? Strike: Yes, am bound to. Attorney: I put it to you, in the absence of such consultations your are not authorized by the union rules to speak on matters touching an individual. Whatever your may report is a nullity, is that right? Strike: That’s right. Attorney: I put it to you, that under no circumstances would you speak on behalf of a player without such players authority. On the day, you reported that the Plaintiff would not appear in the event you indeed had such consultation severally, is that right? Strike: That’s right. Student 2: Ways Attorney and Strike Attorney: How has been your relationship with the Plaintiff? Has it been frosty or good? Strike: Good Attorney: Are your conversant with each players’ contract terms and obligation with their respective teams? Strike: Yes indeed. Attorney: Did you realize that whatever you reported to the press was contravening the players’ obligation under the contract? Strike: Yes I deed. Attorney: why then did you proceed to report such details knowing very well that the player you represent would suffer reprimand from the team? I put it to you that whatever you did was malicious. That’s all. Ways Attorney and the reporter Attorney: Do you verify whatever information you report is genuine? Reporter: Yes we do. Attorney: Did you contact the plaintiff for such verification? Reporter: No. Attorney: I put it to you that then you never followed your procedures and malicious intent can be presumed. That’s all. Student 3: The Judge As the judge, I would disregard the testimony of both Strike and the reporter as all impute malicious intent and would not qualify for an admission. Problem 13-20; Acid Remark Passersby sue the city for personal injuries arising out of acid spilt on him by an employee of Get the Lead Out Company. The Company had been contracted by the City to rehabilitate two building so that they can be rented out. The employee issues an apologetic statement to the passersby. The issue is whether the said statement is admissible against the City (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Answer. In light of the provisions of section 801(d) (2) (D) on employees admissions, such statement can only be admissible against the employer. In the instant case, the employer is Get the Lead Out Company and not the City and as such the claim against the City stands on the sand. Secondly the employee is not the agent or servant of City as aforementioned, and there is no agency servant relationship as required by the provision. Having observed that, the employee statement is a fallacy concerning the City and is not admissible (Friedland, Bergman, & Taslitz, 2015). Problem 13-22: Et Tu Ilona on Conspirator Admissions Illona is charged with conspiring in the ultimate death of Armando by Justin. During the mini-trial, the prosecutor relies on the evidence of one Mellisa, who had a conversation with Justin whereby Justin informed her of the plot and Illonas involvement. The defence counsel objects to this evidence are saying it is hearsay, and the judge has to make a ruling. Ruling; The statutory elements of Rule 802(d) (2) (E) requires that the be a party’s conspirator. In this case, Mellisa the declaring is not a party to Justins murderous act, and this can best be described as hearsay and inadmissible. References Friedland I.S., Bergman.P. & Taslitz.E.A. (2015).Evidence Law and Practice.4thLexis Nexis.Cuny Home Blackboard. Read More