AC 2.4 Assess key influences affecting the outcome
10 MARKS = 48 MINUTES
5 IN DETAIL
CLEAR AND DETAILED EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Evidence:
One significant factor influencing the outcome of a criminal trial is evidence. Evidence is the
grounds for decision making, evidence is what the judge or jury use when deciding on the
verdict of the trial. It defines the facts of the case, enforcing the innocence of the defendant
or proving the defendant guilty. If there is no evidence, there is nothing that can support a
conviction or acquittal. The different types of evidence include physical evidence such as
DNA, hair strands, impressional evidence, fingerprints and testimonial evidence like witness
statements or victim accounts. Strong and clear physical evidence can strengthen a case
while inconsistent testimonial evidence can weaken the case. The burden of proof is a legal
standard that requires a legal party in a dispute to provide evidence to support their claim or
argument. The quality and quantity of evidence must reach this standard. If there is a lack of
strong evidence or significant counter-arguments by the defence, it can lead to reasonable
doubt which may result in an acquittal. In regards to legal admissibility and exclusion, all
evidence used in trial must meet legal standards such as not being unreliable, prejudice or
illegally obtained. Any evidence that does not meet legal standards will be excluded. When
there is insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution’s case, the defence is able to
apply for a ‘no case to answer’ which means that the judge may rule that the evidence
brought forward is insufficient for the trial. If the judge decides to rule a ‘no case to answer’,
the trial is stopped immediately. A case that demonstrates the influences of evidence on
affecting the outcome is Colin Stagg. He was wrongly accused of the murder of Rachel
Nickell. After the police received a tip off about Colin Stagg, the police sent a female
undercover officer to form a relationship with Colin and encouraged him to confess, however
this did not produce any clear evidence or admission of guilt, the judge condemned this
police tactic calling it a ‘deceptive conduct of the greatest kind’. In addition to this, the case
relied solely on circumstantial evidence which is not enough to support a conviction. In
conclusion, the quality, reliability and presentation of evidence in court can significantly
influence the jury’s decision and understanding of the trial. Strong evidence can lead to a
conviction, whereas weak evidence can lead to an acquittal. Therefore, evidence shows a
decisive influence on the outcome of trials.
Eye-witnesses:
Another significant factor that can influence the outcome of a criminal trial is eye-witnesses.
The jury tends to find eye-witness statements compelling, they often believe that first-hand
accounts of the event are clear evidence showcasing guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Unfortunately, the reliability and credibility of witnesses can be affected by a range of factors,
which may lead to wrong convictions or acquittals. The reliability of an eyewitness is crucial
to trial outcomes. A study by the name of the Innocence Project found that approximately 70
percent of wrongful convictions that were overturned by physical evidence, were first caused
by eyewitness misidentification. An eyewitness may inaccurately recall certain events and
details due to stress, style of questioning by the police. The jury often assumes that a
confident eyewitness is an accurate one, this is able to significantly influence the outcome of
the trial. Studies conducted by Wells and Bradfield in 1998 however disprove this, the
, confidence of an eyewitness is not directly proportional to the truthfulness of the recollection
of the memory. Consequently, a confident but inaccurate eyewitness can sway the jurors
verdict, which may lead to wrongful convictions. Line ups are a tool used by the police to
show an eyewitness a group of people to see if the witness can identify the suspect as the
perpetrator. Poorly conducted line-ups or identification procedures may lead to false
identifications. A study by Lotus and Palmer in 1974 displayed that questions and
suggestions are able to distort the memory of an eyewitness, affecting the reliability of their
identification. This yet again reinforces the idea that unreliable eyewitness testimonies can
influence jurors and sway the verdict of a trial. In addition to this, biases and stereotypes,
whether conscious or unconscious, can impact eyewitness testimonies and affect the trial
outcome. A part of the innocence project studied the ramifications of the ‘cross-race effect’,
this means that witnesses are more likely to misidentify someone of a different race to
themselves, leading to false identifications. Stereotypes and biases like these can cause an
unfair trial as the jury may base their decision on inaccurate testimonies. This underlines the
effect biases have on eyewitness testimony and how this can affect a criminal trial. A case
study that highlights the significance of eyewitness testimonies on criminal trials is in the
case of Ronald Cotton. Three days after Jennifer Thompson was brutally raped, there was a
faulty photographic line up that resulted in a mistaken witness identification. Cotton spent 11
years in prison before he was exonerated due to DNA evidence being found that did not
match his. Another case study that displays the effect eyewitness testimonies have on
criminal trials is the case of Anthony Ray Hinton. He was convicted in 1985 of two managers
of a fastfood restaurant. He was convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimony, this
resulted in him being held on Alabama’s death row before his convictions were overturned
and he was exonerated after 30 years in prison. To conclude, the testimony of an
eyewitness can drastically affect the outcome. A compelling eyewitness testimony can
convince jurors to be on their side even without solid evidence. Inconsistency within
eyewitness testimonies can lead to doubt and even acquittal of the defendant. The over-
reliance on eyewitnesses emphasises the need for substantial evidence to ensure a fair
outcome in the trial.
Expert Witness
Additionally a significant factor is an expert witness. An expert witness is an individual who
has a high level of specialised knowledge in a particular field that presents their opinion
about facts in legal proceedings. Expert witnesses play a significant role in the trial, they
offer their expertise on complicated topics that the average person may struggle to interpret.
However, due to their influence being so significant on the trial, they may be responsible for
wrongful convictions if their testimony is inaccurate, flawed or misinterpreted by the jury.
Jurors tend to view expert witnesses as viable and reasoned, their opinions tend to have a
large impact on the jury due to a perceived authority and credibility. A study by Loftus in
1980 found that jurors are more likely to view the defendant as guilty when forensic evidence
is presented in court even if it is limited. As observed through the Sally Clark case, expert
witnesses can have flawed opinions, Williams claimed that the chances of both children
dying due to SIDS was 1 in 73 million and ignored lethal levels of an infection that could
have caused the death of one of her children, he did not disclose this information to the
defence. Due to the complexity of evidence presented by expert witnesses, jurors may
struggle to understand the evidence. The Journal of Forensic Sciences study discovered that
over 95 percent of jurors view expert testimonies as highly persuasive. Additionally, the
innocence project claimed that over 52 percent of wrongful convictions in the United States
of America were due to misleading or misinterpreted forensic evidence provided by an
10 MARKS = 48 MINUTES
5 IN DETAIL
CLEAR AND DETAILED EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Evidence:
One significant factor influencing the outcome of a criminal trial is evidence. Evidence is the
grounds for decision making, evidence is what the judge or jury use when deciding on the
verdict of the trial. It defines the facts of the case, enforcing the innocence of the defendant
or proving the defendant guilty. If there is no evidence, there is nothing that can support a
conviction or acquittal. The different types of evidence include physical evidence such as
DNA, hair strands, impressional evidence, fingerprints and testimonial evidence like witness
statements or victim accounts. Strong and clear physical evidence can strengthen a case
while inconsistent testimonial evidence can weaken the case. The burden of proof is a legal
standard that requires a legal party in a dispute to provide evidence to support their claim or
argument. The quality and quantity of evidence must reach this standard. If there is a lack of
strong evidence or significant counter-arguments by the defence, it can lead to reasonable
doubt which may result in an acquittal. In regards to legal admissibility and exclusion, all
evidence used in trial must meet legal standards such as not being unreliable, prejudice or
illegally obtained. Any evidence that does not meet legal standards will be excluded. When
there is insufficient evidence at the end of the prosecution’s case, the defence is able to
apply for a ‘no case to answer’ which means that the judge may rule that the evidence
brought forward is insufficient for the trial. If the judge decides to rule a ‘no case to answer’,
the trial is stopped immediately. A case that demonstrates the influences of evidence on
affecting the outcome is Colin Stagg. He was wrongly accused of the murder of Rachel
Nickell. After the police received a tip off about Colin Stagg, the police sent a female
undercover officer to form a relationship with Colin and encouraged him to confess, however
this did not produce any clear evidence or admission of guilt, the judge condemned this
police tactic calling it a ‘deceptive conduct of the greatest kind’. In addition to this, the case
relied solely on circumstantial evidence which is not enough to support a conviction. In
conclusion, the quality, reliability and presentation of evidence in court can significantly
influence the jury’s decision and understanding of the trial. Strong evidence can lead to a
conviction, whereas weak evidence can lead to an acquittal. Therefore, evidence shows a
decisive influence on the outcome of trials.
Eye-witnesses:
Another significant factor that can influence the outcome of a criminal trial is eye-witnesses.
The jury tends to find eye-witness statements compelling, they often believe that first-hand
accounts of the event are clear evidence showcasing guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Unfortunately, the reliability and credibility of witnesses can be affected by a range of factors,
which may lead to wrong convictions or acquittals. The reliability of an eyewitness is crucial
to trial outcomes. A study by the name of the Innocence Project found that approximately 70
percent of wrongful convictions that were overturned by physical evidence, were first caused
by eyewitness misidentification. An eyewitness may inaccurately recall certain events and
details due to stress, style of questioning by the police. The jury often assumes that a
confident eyewitness is an accurate one, this is able to significantly influence the outcome of
the trial. Studies conducted by Wells and Bradfield in 1998 however disprove this, the
, confidence of an eyewitness is not directly proportional to the truthfulness of the recollection
of the memory. Consequently, a confident but inaccurate eyewitness can sway the jurors
verdict, which may lead to wrongful convictions. Line ups are a tool used by the police to
show an eyewitness a group of people to see if the witness can identify the suspect as the
perpetrator. Poorly conducted line-ups or identification procedures may lead to false
identifications. A study by Lotus and Palmer in 1974 displayed that questions and
suggestions are able to distort the memory of an eyewitness, affecting the reliability of their
identification. This yet again reinforces the idea that unreliable eyewitness testimonies can
influence jurors and sway the verdict of a trial. In addition to this, biases and stereotypes,
whether conscious or unconscious, can impact eyewitness testimonies and affect the trial
outcome. A part of the innocence project studied the ramifications of the ‘cross-race effect’,
this means that witnesses are more likely to misidentify someone of a different race to
themselves, leading to false identifications. Stereotypes and biases like these can cause an
unfair trial as the jury may base their decision on inaccurate testimonies. This underlines the
effect biases have on eyewitness testimony and how this can affect a criminal trial. A case
study that highlights the significance of eyewitness testimonies on criminal trials is in the
case of Ronald Cotton. Three days after Jennifer Thompson was brutally raped, there was a
faulty photographic line up that resulted in a mistaken witness identification. Cotton spent 11
years in prison before he was exonerated due to DNA evidence being found that did not
match his. Another case study that displays the effect eyewitness testimonies have on
criminal trials is the case of Anthony Ray Hinton. He was convicted in 1985 of two managers
of a fastfood restaurant. He was convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimony, this
resulted in him being held on Alabama’s death row before his convictions were overturned
and he was exonerated after 30 years in prison. To conclude, the testimony of an
eyewitness can drastically affect the outcome. A compelling eyewitness testimony can
convince jurors to be on their side even without solid evidence. Inconsistency within
eyewitness testimonies can lead to doubt and even acquittal of the defendant. The over-
reliance on eyewitnesses emphasises the need for substantial evidence to ensure a fair
outcome in the trial.
Expert Witness
Additionally a significant factor is an expert witness. An expert witness is an individual who
has a high level of specialised knowledge in a particular field that presents their opinion
about facts in legal proceedings. Expert witnesses play a significant role in the trial, they
offer their expertise on complicated topics that the average person may struggle to interpret.
However, due to their influence being so significant on the trial, they may be responsible for
wrongful convictions if their testimony is inaccurate, flawed or misinterpreted by the jury.
Jurors tend to view expert witnesses as viable and reasoned, their opinions tend to have a
large impact on the jury due to a perceived authority and credibility. A study by Loftus in
1980 found that jurors are more likely to view the defendant as guilty when forensic evidence
is presented in court even if it is limited. As observed through the Sally Clark case, expert
witnesses can have flawed opinions, Williams claimed that the chances of both children
dying due to SIDS was 1 in 73 million and ignored lethal levels of an infection that could
have caused the death of one of her children, he did not disclose this information to the
defence. Due to the complexity of evidence presented by expert witnesses, jurors may
struggle to understand the evidence. The Journal of Forensic Sciences study discovered that
over 95 percent of jurors view expert testimonies as highly persuasive. Additionally, the
innocence project claimed that over 52 percent of wrongful convictions in the United States
of America were due to misleading or misinterpreted forensic evidence provided by an
