Natalie Johnson CJAD-405 A 11-52 (Laws of Criminal Evidence) Assignment 1

1. Define the following terms: real/physical evidence, testimony, documentary evidence, demonstrative evidence, direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence. Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence, is any material object, introduced at a trial, with the intention to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics. object Documentary evidence is a type of written proof that is offered at a trial to establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact that is in dispute. For example, a letter, contract, deed or certificate. Demonstrative evidence is actual objects, pictures, models and other devices which are supposedly intended to clarify the facts for the judge and jury. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. This type of evidence proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required; it is a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. This type of evidence can be inferred by the jury.

Testimony is a statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation Direct evidence proves that something is factual without inference or assumption.

2. Explain how the Anglican System influenced the rules of evidence in the United States. What is the main difference between the rules of evidence in the Anglican and American systems? England and Scotland had a tremendous impact upon the origin and development of American Law, the Anglican System. These laws were adopted by the United States and have been in effect from the beginning of our nation and are still in effect currently. The main differences between the rules of evidence in the Anglican and American is that the American system separated the powers of the state and church when the Anglican system did not. 4. What is the difference between an objection based on the form of the question and an objection based upon the substance of the question? As to form, think of it as "how" is the question asked. As to substance, think of it as "what" information is the question seeking. Some questions are asked in a manner that is not allowed in court, such as "leading questions." The question might be seeking legitimate testimony, but just not legitimately phrased under the rules of evidence. The objection will be as to the form of the question. Some questions seek testimony that does not have to be given, such as privileged information. That kind of question might be legitimately phrased but seeking

testimony that according to evidence rules the witness does not have to provide. That objection will be as to the substance of the question. http://wiki.answers 5. What effect do the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have on state rules of evidence? Explain your answer. The effect the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have on state rules of evidence is that this higher court can overturn a verdict from the lower court by the means of an appeal filed by the criminal lawyer on behalf of the convicted. For example, a person convicted of murder in the state court of Syracuse County Court is sent to jail to serve his time from the conviction, but the convicted has the legal right to appeal their conviction to the higher court, the United States Supreme Court Appellate Division, State of New York or whatever state. If the United States Supreme Court Appellate Division, State of New York, reviews the lower court decision and decides differently than the lower courts decision, then it is reversed. Then this new law made by the United State Supreme Court becomes new case law and overturns whatever previous case law was in existence before.

6. Is direct evidence, such as eyewitness identification, more reliable than circumstantial evidence? Explain your answer. In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, there is "nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!' (http://psychology.wikia. com/wiki/Eyewitness_identification). I believe that neither direct evidence, such as eyewitness identification, is more reliable that circumstantial evidence. There has been wrongful convictions by a jury of the accused from both direct and circumstantial evidence. Plea bargaining of the accused defendant between their criminal attorney and the district attorneys office of pending charges is often accepted by the defendant instead of going to trial due to the fear of being wrongfully convicted; plea bargaining is a definite outcome for the accused defendant. The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the jury finds them to be. (http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Eyewitness_identification).