Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.


Create a 6 page essay paper that discusses Evidence: Legal Research Memorandum.Download file to see previous pages... Irrich. (6) Recommendations on trial tactics EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The case against A

Create a 6 page essay paper that discusses Evidence: Legal Research Memorandum.

Download file to see previous pages...

Irrich. (6) Recommendations on trial tactics EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The case against Adam can be undone with a careful defense centering on the disputation of the validity of the positive identification testimony of Andrew. That testimony can be dismissed on grounds that it is based on a conclusion and a speculation and not on first-hand knowledge. Another leg of the defense is based on questioning the validity and legality of the initial search of the car of Adam, and subsequent arrest based on flimsy grounds. The testimony of the pawnshop owner can likewise be challenged and dismissed because it is likewise based on speculation. These are the basic components of a defense strategy aimed at acquitting Adam of the crime of burglary. DISCUSSION: (1) On Adam being identified by Andrew The fact of the case is that Andrew made a positive identification of Adam as the one who entered his house and tried to burgle it, on the same night that the crime occurred. His exact words were, “You got him, I reckon that’s the guy!”On the other hand we have the word from Adam that he had certainty with regard to Andrew making a false identification, one because he was wearing a beanie, and two because he had gloves on, implying that he did not leave any hand prints in the house. The question is whether those are enough to avoid identification, and if there are other things about Adam, such as his overall build, his clothes, his smell, or any identifying marks that could have led Andrew to say that indeed, the person behind the police car that night, Adam, was the perpetrator of the burglary. On the other hand, there are key aspects of that identification that we can attack. One is that we can make a distinction between whether Andrew actually saw Adam, or whether Andrew made the conclusion based on what he could make out of Adam’s circumstances during the time of the crime. The statement that Andrew made that night when Adam was seated at the back of the police car is ambiguous, and open to various interpretations. For one, the use of the phrase ‘I reckon’ can be interpreted as meaning that Andrew concluded that Adam must have been the perpetrator of the crime, owing to Adam’s being arrested that night, being driven back to him, the way he looked, and that they apprehended Adam near the scene of the crime, under suspicious circumstances. It remains to be determined in further detail what happened during that crucial exchange and positive identification by Andrew of Adam as the culprit. The distinction to be made with regard to the identification being either something that Andrew concluded or based on something that he actually saw is crucial, I believe to making our case against the validity of this testimony and piece of evidence. i You seem to be on the right track as far as sensing that this may be the weakest part of the whole case of the prosecution. The rules of evidence in Western Australia are that testimonials based on conclusions rather than the actual witnessing by sight and hearing cannot be admitted as evidence in court. We may have a valid point to raise with regard to whether the positive identification was the result of a conclusion or of actual witnessing.

Show more
Ask a Question