Mock Trial PDF

Preview

Summary

This is the questions and answers to the mock trial that is due at the end of the semester...

Description

FRSC 1100H – 2019 – Mock Trial Jury Assignment R. v. Carter 1. What evidence did you find to be the most persuasive in the mock trial and why? (6 marks) The evidence that was presented in this trial that appeared to be the most persuasive in my opinion was the fingerprint that the forensics scientist had found behind the steering wheel that matched James Carters fingerprint. This piece of evidence was the most persuasive because it was the prime connection that linked James to the crime scene. Besides from all the hearsay evidence, the fingerprint was real concrete evidence that attached James to the crime which he claimed not to be apart of. In James statement, he claimed that he never drove the car and that he sat in the backseat of the car. If what he was saying was true, then there would’ve been no fingerprints to match him behind the steering wheel or on the steering wheel at all for that matter. 2. What other evidence that was not provided might have assisted you as the trier of fact in making your determination in the case? (3 marks) The other evidence that was not provided that would have assisted me as the trier of fact in making my decision in this case would be if Cora, James girlfriend, had seen James physically put the tree branch into the car and stick in between the seat and accelerator at the crime scene but instead she only seen him take the branch from the tree and walk over to the car. If that was the case, it would help the crowns defence due to the fact that even if James did or did not get into an argument with Chris, it would’ve proved that he did not walk home after they had breakfast at McDonald’s as he said he did in his statement to the court since the prints in the car were wiped after they had breakfast and this would’ve indeed showed that he should be held accountable on all accounts he is being charged for. 3. What legal submissions did you find to be the most compelling and why? (4 marks) The legal statement that I found to be the most compelling was the crowns opening statement. The crown had not only hearsay evidence, but they also had concrete evidence. They pointed out one of the most important pieces of evidence that connected the accused, James Carter, to the crime by matching his fingerprint to the one found behind the steering wheel of the Ford Explorer since he claimed he never drove the car. 4. What was most helpful from the information/instructions that the Judge gave you about the law in helping you to decide the case? (4 marks) The most helpful instruction I had received from the judge about the law that helped me decide the case was if I find any doubt with the evidence that was presented during the trial, then the accused should be found not guilty. Information that the judge had given me as a trier of fact that also helped me come to my verdict was what standards a person has to meet when being charged with criminal negligence under section 219 of the criminal code of Canada and also causing death by criminal negligence under section 220 of the criminal code of Canada. 5. As the trier of fact, what is your finding in this matter (what is your decision guilty or not guilty)? (1 marks) As the trier of fact, my findings in this matter is that James Carter is indeed guilty beyond the reasonable doubt.

6. What was the reasoning for your finding in the case? Explain your judicial decision. (7 marks) James Carter is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve come to this conclusion due to the fact all the evidence that was presented had left me with no doubt that James wasn’t guilty. Even though majority of the evidence is hearsay, the forensic scientist had hard concrete evidence through a fingerprint that proves James indeed touched the steering wheel with no explanation as to why he had touched the steering wheel if he was sitting in the backseat of the car as he had claimed during trial. James had also claimed that after they had breakfast at McDonald’s, he walked home because he got into an argument with Chris but the cashier that served them that night said that she never heard any commotion going on. Also, the time that James had claimed to be walking home was around the same time his girlfriend, Cora said he pulled over the car and seen him take the tree branch and walk over to the stolen Ford Explorer. The accused statement was full of impurities and was not consistent to the sole evidence from the scene or the stolen vehicle. Thus, causing me to come to the verdict that James Carter is indeed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 7. After playing the role of Juror, what principle of the rule of law do you think is the most important and why? (5 marks) After playing the role of a Juror, the principle rule of law that I found to be the most important is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This principle of law is significantly important because it helps to eliminates all biases that could potentially be caused that would lead to the accused assumed to be guilty without enough factual hearsay, evidence to prove them so, and without giving them a fair trial. Instead of looking into key facts and evidence that may or may not prove the accused innocence, they would just be presumed guilty immediately and once you’ve come to a biased conclusion, its hard to change your mind on that verdict even with concrete evidence. Without this principle law many people who are being would have an unfair trial, even though in some cases, it is hard to avoid, this rule reduces the bias to a bare minimum....