Nowlin Narrative: Lecture 3. Narrative Evidence as Prior Bad Acts Question: Is “narrative” of an accused’s prior bad acts admissible as “context” or “background”?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Unit 4 Law and order Word power. Words related to law 1. a dishonest, violent, or immoral action that can be punished by law. Last night a woman was.
Advertisements

CVLS Hearsay Refresher Who Cares About Hearsay? A Four-Step Hearsay Formula Hearsay Exceptions Questions.
 Amendment VI  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district.
Introduction to Criminal Law Trials. The criminal justice system is a system of rules, roles, and procedures that determine whether or not someone has.
TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE CLASS 9 28 JULY 2014 DANIEL TYNAN – 12 th Floor Wentworth Chambers.
Explains with some clear reasoning and relevance CPS requirements for charging suspects.
Mock Trial.  GOAL IS TO MAP OUT YOUR CASE IN A STORY  TELL A STORY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE  DO NOT ARGUE!
R OLES & R ESPONSIBILITIES From Speaking With A Purpose: Jo Thornton & Jessica Pegis.
EVIDENCE Trial Procedures. What is the point of Evidence? Evidence is the way in which the Crown and the defence try to reconstruct the chain of events.
The Anatomy of a Criminal Case Government – Libertyville HS.
What would society look like if Eric Cartman was a police officer.
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.
Aggravating Circumstances Professor Robert Farb School of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE P. JANICKE 2011.
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.
Comparative Law Spring 2002 Professor Susanna Fischer CLASS 29 GERMAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE III FRENCH CIVIL PROCEDURE March 26, 2002.
AKA: The Last Words AAKA: Parting Gift Closing Arguments.
CJ227 Criminal Procedure Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 4 (Chapter 9 – Pretrial Motions, Hearings and Pleas) (Chapter.
Character and credit Miiko Kumar 9 February 2015.
Hearsay Rule Lecture 6, 2014.
The criminal courts; procedure and sentencing
Trial Procedures & Courtroom Personnel
TRIAL INFORMATION Steps, vocabulary.
Trial Preparation Washington & Lee School of Law October 19, 2006.
 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.
Juvenile Justice.
Trial Procedures II CLN4U. The Judge, The Crown, The Defence Judge: Judge: Impartial and unbiased Impartial and unbiased Applies law to case, instructs.
Trial advocacy workshop
Juvenile Justice. YOU DECIDE Using the iRespond Units, in each scenario, decide whether the person should be tried as a juvenile or transferred to criminal.
Procedure Procedure at Trial. 1) Court Clerk reads the charge Indictment - if vague - quashed (struck down)
Where we’ve been... ‘Trial by jury is the most transcendent privilege which any citizen can enjoy’ Sir William Blackstone Where we’re going... ‘The trial.
+ 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.
Evidence.
Mock Trial. What? Who? How? Questions? Phil Sneeky took Mr. Abdel’s laptop computer from the staff room. The secretary, Ms. Bythebook, saw him do it.
 “Mr. Big” no longer uncommon  Defence counsel want them excluded  The Courts include them.
Trial Procedures Law 120 MHS Mr. Binet.
Types of Evidence From Arraignment to Verdict. Self-Incrimination The Canada Evidence Act - regulates rules of evidence (1893). Applies to federal jurisdictions.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3 RULES AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE LAW 12 MUNDY
Criminal Courts may be State or Federal Government. Always involve the violation of some standing law. Unlike a civil case, if no law was broken, a Criminal.
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:  LO1 Describe the structure of the court system, and the role and significance of each level of criminal.
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.
Nowlin Narrative Continued.. Narrative as an exception to the Rule Against Prior Consistent Statements General PCS rule: inadmissible Why? Witnesses are.
Nowlin Narrative: Lecture 4. Narrative as Helpful to Defence In Brooks, a Canadian soldier was convicted at standing Court Martial of sexually assaulting.
Call To Order Complete the following statement: You have the right to remain silent… And take out your homework!!!
Miranda vs. Arizona Right to Remain Silent.
Statements and Confessions
The Criminal Trial Process : Exploring the Variety of Evidence and Closing Court Procedures CLN4U Mr. Menla.
The Presentation of Evidence Evidence presented by both the Crown and the defence must be presented in the form of witness testimony and exhibits. All.
Mock Trial Team Strategies and Formalities. Opening Statements 3 minutes Objective – Acquaint court with the case and outline what you are going to prove.
Trial Procedures & Courtroom Personnel
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.
Adverse Inferences From the Failure to Call Witnesses.
The Criminal Process Criminal Courts
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
CONFRONTATION ARKANSAS APRIL 2011 MIKE DENTON.
Unit 4 Word power.
Rules and Theory of Criminal Law Criminal Process
Miranda Warnings.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Evidence.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Trial Procedures & Courtroom Personnel
KENT vs United States 1966.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Presentation transcript:

Nowlin Narrative: Lecture 3

Narrative Evidence as Prior Bad Acts Question: Is “narrative” of an accused’s prior bad acts admissible as “context” or “background”? Larmirande and Guimond were charged with robbery of a grocery store, and murder of an employee there.

Lamirande and Guimond Police seized the notebook of Lamirande. It showed her association with Indian Posse. The trial judge allowed this evidence in as “background, context and narrative.” It was “necessary to the development of the case for the Crown. The notes were “relevant” in these ways.

The defence argued that this was nothing more than “bad character”, and that narrative was not an exception to the bad character rule. The Manitoba Court of Appeal disagreed citing Rowbotham.

Rowbowtham Rowbotham was serving a sentence a sentence in Kingston Pen for a conspiracy conviction. He was now charged with conspiracy to import and traffic in a narcotic. A witness testified that he was recruited by the accused while both were serving in Kingston Pen.

The Crown sought, successfully, to introduce the fact that the accused was serving at Kingston for a prior conspiracy conviction as it “was necessary to the development of the Crown’s case.” This basis for admissibility was described as “freestanding.”

The Manitoba Court of Appeal also applied this “freestanding” rule to evidence of the get away driver, that the two of them had worked together on robberies in the past. The Crown argued this evidence was “necessary” to show that the present robbery was not “spur of the moment”, but, rather, an ongoing criminal enterprise.

The Crown argued that it also put into context why a sawed off shotgun with tape around it was so readily available, why violence so easily contemplated, and how a different and second location could be quickly chosen when the first location proved unavailable.

Held: the evidence that the accused and Desjarlais had planned together and executed other robberies of a similar nature within a very short time prior to the robbery in question was highly relevant in explaining the background to the present robbery.

Nowlin It is difficult to understand why the jury needed to hear about prior robberies when the jury heard evidence of the planning of this one. How does this make the prior robberies “necessary” to telling the story of the present?

If not part of the act itself or its planning, and if it does not amount to similar fact evidence, what is its relevance?

Admissibility of Confessions of Prior Bad Acts as Narrative General Rule: Just as prior bad acts are inadmissible, so are confessions to prior bad acts. Inadmissible portions of statements should be edited. ie. a fact otherwise not admissible in evidence does not become admissible merely because it is incorporated in a confession.

In R. v. L.(F.) the Crown sought to tender a confession of the accused to his wife as to the sexual assault on a child which involved his general practices and fantasies which included young girls and their panties. The remainder of the confession, the court held, was admissible to provide context to the “bald” confession.

In the Court’s mind, the “weight” of the statement could only be assessed in the context in which it occurred. Nowlin: isn’t the statement admissible as relevant to this transaction as opposed to only being “narrative”, and as it is being allowed to be used in assessing weight, doesn’t it mean this evidence is more than narrative?

Post-Offence Undercover Admissions and Bad Acts as Narrative e.g. the “Mr. Big scenario”, where a target is asked to set out his crimes as a pre-condition to employment in the criminal enterprise. Defence lawyers typically challenge the admissibility of the prior bad acts related by their clients in these interviews (most of which have never been investigated or charged), as well as that of the scripted crimes requested by the police handlers and acted out by the accused.

Nowlin The panacea for the myriad evidential problems this scenario presents (particularly its violation of the character evidence rule) appears to be narrative.

Jones In Jones, the accused stood trial for two aggravated assaults. The trial judge allowed in evidence of his claim to police in the undercover operation that he was ready to beat up a woman for pay. On appeal, this evidence was held “no doubt” admissible to give a full picture of the narrative that the appellant gave to the undercover officers.

Nowlin This use stretches the temporal aspect of narrative to the future: ie. post-offence. Ie. this is no longer putting the Crown’s case in chronological perspective.

Narrative as Bad Character “Relationship” Evidence Canadian courts appear to recognize a general rule in favor of admitting bad acts when they occur in the context of a marital or similar relationship – particularly with respect to prior violent or sexual acts in that relationship. It has been used to justify the admissibility of similar fact relationship evidence – merely to demonstrate the nature of the relationship (violent) which is seen as probative.

Non-Similar Fact relationship Evidence Barbour: facing trial for the murder of Margaret Harris. Identity not in issue. Trial Judge admitted evidence of the violent nature of their relationship. SCC: this is nothing more than “disposition” evidence. It showed him to be a “jealous” man, and the jury was told she was seeing another man, although there was no proof the accused knew that.

Vs. B.(S.)

F.(D.S.)

Baptiste