Cross-examination Of Witnesses Research Articles

НАУКОВИЙ ВИСНОВОК кафедри кримінального процесу та криміналістики Навчально-наукового інституту права Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка щодо відповідності Конституції України (конституційності) положень пункту 4 частини першої статті 284 Кримінального процесуального кодексу України (за запитом судді-доповідача В.В. Городовенка)

The role of the court and the parties to the judicial examination of the accused, witnesses and victims under the new Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine 2012 The article defined the essence of the terms «direct» and «cross examination of witnesses and victims. It is noted that during the trial examination of witnesses have not used the free form of presentation is indicated, but the answers to the questions, and offer a free presentation about the presiding evidence applies only questioning the accused. Prosecutors and defense counsel in the trial of criminal proceedings to ensure performance of their judicial functions of prosecution and defense special attention should be paid to the observance of procedural order, the correct strategy and tactics of direct and cross-examination of witnesses and victims, as in the wider use of elements of competition under the new Code of Ukraine are more likely to receive from the person being questioned necessary information to verify the legal positions of the parties. It is noted that the court does not conduct questioning, but only monitors compliance with the rules of its implementation by the parties. The judge may, in protest parties take matters which do not concern the merits of the criminal proceedings and in case of ambiguity in the testimony of a witness, victim regarding the presence or absence of particular circumstances, to require the witness to a clear answer to the question – «yes» or «no», but ask your questions and the presiding judge can only after the witness put the question victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant, their representatives and legal representatives or other evidence in the study. The problem of participation of the accused (defendant) in the «direct» and «cross the interrogation of witnesses and victims under the provisions of international conventions and European Court of Human Rights and is a conclusion that the defendant, as it relates to the defense shall have the right, even in the presence of counsel, to take part in the questioning of witnesses and victims.

Self-Representation: Pro se Cross-Examination and Revisiting Trauma upon Child Witnesses

In the United States, the right to confront one’s accusers at trial is one of the key components of the adversarial legal process. As a part of this process, defendants are permitted to represent themselves if they decide to do so voluntarily (Faretta v. California 1975). As cross-examination of witnesses is considered essential to the adversarial legal system, child victims can be faced with being personally cross-examined by defendants. In cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as child abuse victims, there is concern that being cross-examined by the defendant can be highly problematic and create more trauma over and above being cross-examined by a defense attorney. In the United States, there are no laws that explicitly forbid defendants from cross-examining their own victims, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. We discuss relevant legal traditions in the United States, laws and procedures followed by other countries that use the adversarial system, current psychological research on cross-examination of child witnesses, the need for further research, and recommendations for ways the United States can protect the rights, well-being, and personal security of vulnerable children.

Study on the Admissibility and Probative Power of DNA Evidence Based on Forensic DNA Analysis

Advances in forensic DNA analysis have led to tremendous improvements in identifying and confirming perpetrators and victims. This has added credibility to DNA evidence, resulting in cases where criminals are more likely to be forced to own up to their criminality and culpability. This paper addresses scientific and technical theories the DNA analytical technologies are founded on as well as the suitability of individual analytical procedures. Beyond these issues, it went on to discuss the requirements that need to be met in order for DNA evidence, collected through forensic DNA testing, to be admissible in court in Korea. DNA testing results are presented in court in the form of certified expert testimony. And according to Article 313, “Statement, etc.” of the Criminal Procedure Act, as long as the DNA evidence offered is free from errors in laboratory procedures and concluding interpretations of the person responsible for producing the expert opinion recording, such procedures and outcomes will be admissible as legitimate evidence in court. In other words, the aforementioned expert testimony is nothing short of legislative intent at acknowledging the testimony as admissible in court, thus should not be understood as standards with which the scientific evidence concerned is admissible and tried at court. For this reason, admissibility in court of DNA evidence from DNA forensic analysis should not only be based on whether it meets the requirements as expert testimony, but also whether its theories of reasoning and analyses are founded on acceptable scientific principles. Furthermore, the tools and methods used in DNAprofiling need to be validated, allowing the analyzed result in question to be assessed for admissibility in criminal court. Trends of precedents regarding DNA evidence seem to require that the relevancy of DNA analytical theories, suitability of DNA analytical methods that have implemented these theories, and maintenance of the chain of custody of evidence by applying scientific procedures to the targets concerned, be met for the evidence to be admissible in court. Furthermore, it may be fair to say that within the structure of Korea’s criminal prosecution, the processes involved in determining whether or not DNA evidence is credible may be part of what is needed to assess its probative value. At the moment, theoretical foundations of DNA analysis are deemed reliable with the overall approval of scientific circles, however there are improvements made all the time in standard analytical methodologies and procedures regarding their implementation and analytical techniques. This has created an unbridgeable gap between common knowledge and the outcomes of scientific research activities that legal experts, particularly trial judges, are left with no choice but to be more and more dependent on expert testimony when they assess the credibility of DNA evidence. Still, the more weight DNA analysis carries, the more likely serious errors in laboratory testing occur; thus, there is increased emphasis on how to keep the chain of custody in determining the admissibility of DNA evidence, for example, the qualification of those involved in testing, sample collection and preservation, stability of the testing methods that have been utilized, and conformance to analytical procedures. Therefore, if there is evidence that is crucial in determining guilt in crime, and the continuity of its preservation is closely related to the presence and integrity of the evidence concerned, namely DNA evidence, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity for the credibility of evidence to be tried in court during the entire processes of such evidence being collected, stored and analyzed to: prevent wrongful accusations; to make court proceedings more impartial; and to comply with appropriate procedures. To this end, cross examination of witnesses, disclosure of extensive evidence of the parties involved, and cross examinat

Henderson Instructions: Do They Enhance Evidence Evaluation?

ABSTRACTMistaken eyewitness identifications are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Even with procedural safeguards (e.g., attorney argument, cross-examination of witnesses) in place, jurors still have difficulty evaluating the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The purpose of the current study was to test the New Jersey Supreme Court’s assumptions that recently implemented research-based case-specific jury instructions will sensitize jurors to unreliable eyewitness testimony. Four hundred sixty-eight jury-eligible adults watched a trial simulation in which estimator variables, system variables, and jury instruction were manipulated, and subsequently rendered a verdict. The Henderson instructions influenced mock jurors’ perceptions of the eyewitness identification, but these perceptions did not translate to their verdict decisions. Rather than sensitizing jurors, the instructions induced an overall skepticism of eyewitness identification. Taken together, results indicate that the current Henderson instructions should be modified to improve juror sensitivity to various witnessing and identification conditions.

The Direct Examination of Witnesses and Experts Not Called for Cross-Examination: Balancing Efficiency and Fairness

The usual practice in international arbitration of substituting written testimony for oral evidence-in-chief is intended to narrow the issues in dispute, avoid surprise at the hearing, and free up hearing time for the cross-examination of witnesses and experts. What happens, however, when a party elects not to call a witness or expert for cross-examination? Should the party presenting that witness or expert be permitted to request his/her appearance at the hearing? Can a party effectively prevent the appearance of a witness or expert by simply waiving his/her cross-examination? All of these questions ultimately require a delicate balancing exercise between fairness, equality, and the party's right to present its case on the one hand, and procedural efficiency on the other hand. This article evaluates the rules of various arbitral institutions, as well as recent trends in arbitral practice, to offer an approach that preserves both fairness and efficiency.

Examination of witnesses

In modern criminal procedure personal evidence is dominant with respect to material evidence and in not a few cases, the verdict is predominantly based on the fact that has been proven by personal evidence. Therefore, both in theory and in law give special attention to such evidence. Examination of witnesses is traditional evidence and also irreplaceable evidence in criminal proceedings to which is given a special attention in this paper work all in the context of entry adversarial elements in our criminal proceedings, primarily on the trial. The paper deals with the issue of burden of proof, as well as basic rules and cross-examination of witnesses at the trial, with special emphasis on cross-examination.

Civil Justice Systems in Europe and the United States

The remarks of Professor Kotz given at the first Herbert L. Bernstein Memorial Lecture comparing civil justice systems in the United States and Germany are presented in this article. Adversariness is the hallmark of the American system with not only cross-examination of witnesses by lawyers, but also preparation of witnesses for cross-examination. Civil procedure in Germany and in other civil law jurisdictions differs from the American system by making the judge responsible for the selection of expert witnesses, for the examination-in-chief of both fact and expert witnesses, and for creating the record based on those examinations. The author notes that the truth is that both in the American and Continental civil justice systems, the power to establish the facts on which the judicial decision rests is reserved to the decision-makers, whether the trial judge or jury in the United States, or the court on the Continent. On the other hand, it is in both systems exclusively for the parties and their lawyers to identify the facts they think will support the claim or defense, to make the appropriate factual allegations, and to nominate the witnesses and the facts of which they allegedly have knowledge. It follows that in their own ways both the German and American systems are adversary systems of civil procedure. In both systems the lawyers advance partisan positions from first pleadings to final arguments. In both systems the parties and their lawyers investigate and identify in their briefs the facts they think will support their claims and defenses. In both systems the court cannot go beyond the parties' factual contentions nor can the court strike out on its own in the search for what it believes might be the real truth. He concludes with thoughts on the controversies over transplanting legal institutions from one society to another and the strengths and weaknesses of the two systems of civil procedure in different types of cases.

Advocacy in the New Millennium

Practicing good advocacy in the new millennium may not be that different than it was in the century just past. What is different are some of the new challenges to be faced in becoming and remaining an effective and successful advocate. The foundations of skillful advocacy are best set down at the outset of one's legal career, and the development of the art must at all times be considered from its human, legal, and ethical sides. While the evolution of the practice of law is built upon the careful and steady historical ascendancy of precedent, there are practices and rules in our age that need to be critically examined. In this lecture, delivered before an audience comprised mainly of people newly entering the legal profession, the author shares his thoughts on the contemporary practice and ethical strictures of good advocacy. He draws on a wide body of knowledge, personal experience, and established practices in the legal profession, and imparts lessons on a thorough range of advocacy topics, including the importance of preparation and presentation, the art of examination and cross examination of witnesses, and tactics for addressing juries.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCES OF AN ACCIDENT AND THEIR APPLICTION IN RESEARCH

An accident depends on a lot of factors and circumstances. The estabilishment of factors, different evidences and circumstances are very important for research. Some important evidences are fixed when we make photos, do the the measurements of the deformation of means of transport, do the measurements of sliding and of stopping, estimate the condition of road and weather, driver's and pedestrian's actions, do cross-examination of witnesses and so on. We often have no result even if we know the main circumstances of the accident. So we need some engineer countings for the modelling of various situations. The method of linear momentum is presented in this article. It is used for the counting of parameters of accidents. The accident diagram gives information for us. We can do the research of an accident with the help of this method and software. So the research into the collision of cars was done with the help of this method and software.

The establishment of circumstances and evidences of an accident and their appliction in research

Abstract An accident depends on a lot of factors and circumstances. The estabilishment of factors, different evidences and circumstances are very important for research. Some important evidences are fixed when we make photos, do the the measurements of the deformation of means of transport, do the measurements of sliding and of stopping, estimate the condition of road and weather, driver's and pedestrian's actions, do cross-examination of witnesses and so on. We often have no result even if we know the main circumstances of the accident. So we need some engineer countings for the modelling of various situations. The method of linear momentum is presented in this article. It is used for the counting of parameters of accidents. The accident diagram gives information for us. We can do the research of an accident with the help of this method and software. So the research into the collision of cars was done with the help of this method and software.

New developments concerning perjury

Looks at the historical development of the “oath” before discussing developments in organizational behaviour and the atmosphere of the justice system. Considers the law and psychology and the cross examination of witnesses. Looks at the difference between perjury and deception.

Battered women who kill: Jury simulation and legal defenses.

This study assesses acquital rates using mock jurors in cases involving a battered woman charged with killing her husband. The simulated trial format was based on actual courtroom proceedings including witness cross-examination and jury deliberation proceedings. The type of plea entered was varied and reflected either self-defense, automatism, or a hypothetical plea of psychological self-defense. The severity of abuse incurred by the defendant was also varied along with expert testimony. Jurors more frequently found the defendant not guilty when a plea of automatism was entered compared to a plea of self-defense. The frequency of acquittals following a plea of psychological self-defense resulted in more acquittals than the self-defense plea but significantly fewer than the automatism plea. The likelihood of acquittal increased under conditions of severe abuse as opposed to moderate abuse. Expert witness testimony was observed to influence verdicts during juror deliberations.

Permissible Cross-Examination of Witnesses in Sexual Cases

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Bardina : Itinéraire d'une populiste, 1853-1883

Marie-Claude Burnet-Vigniel, Bardina: the itinerary of a populist. Bardina was one of the most attractive figures of the "Muscovites' Trial" which was to reveal to the public opinion the famous "march toward the people" of the populists. With as starting point her biography composed by Stepnjak in 1883, after her suicide in Geneva, the endeavour to reconstruct her true image, insofar as the cross-examination of witnesses allows to recognize it behind the mask of a militant, we plunge into the drama of a generation so frequently haunted by voluntary death and the boundless despair born of failure. Doubtless, Bardina cannot be defined as a "historical figure" if the phrase is meant to describe a personality influencing events or ideological trends. Nevertheless her personal tragedy, so deeply moving in itself, reveals the true character of her time and of the set in which she lived, just as a bursting bubble demonstrates the ebullition of a mass.

Evidence. Cross-Examination of Witness on Collateral Matters to Discredit

Evidence. Cross-Examination of Witness on Collateral Matters to Discredit