2.4
Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal cases
Witnesses
The role of an eye witness in a criminal case is to describe what they saw happen during a
crime. Witnesses can have a key influence on the outcome of a case by providing details of
the incident and what potential offenders look like. Both the prosecuting and the defence can
call witnesses to support their case. They are normally expected to appear in person.
However, there are some exceptions like those who are deemed not competent to give
evidence or those who are vulnerable and therefore can give evidence through a video call.
The prosecution will present their examination and the defence will counter and question
what the prosecution presents, then they can re-examine the witnesses. The witness could
be questioned by the prosecution as well as the defence. Finally, it is up to the jury to
determine how much weight they decide to give an eye witness in court. Consequently, if a
witness appears to be more reliable then they will have a bigger impact on the outcome of a
case as it may mean the case sways more towards a not guilty verdict.
Therefore one positive impact that eye witnesses will have on the outcome of a case is that
they can help the jury to understand what could have happened at a crime scene and
therefore why someone is guilty. This is because eye witnesses were there in the present
moment and saw what happened. For example, with the Stephen Lawrence case, it was
Duwayne who saw the entire criminal act take place, and if the police would have asked him
what had happened, they would have been able to catch the killers.
On the other hand, sometimes what an eye witness says may not be taken seriously and this
can have a detrimental impact on the outcome of a whole case. For example, with the
Stephen Lawrence case, despite the fact that Duwayane saw what had happened, the police
failed to acknowledge his statements and it led to the killers not being prosecuted at first.
Furthermore, another negative impact that eye witnesses will have on the outcome of a case
is that if they are caught lying, or unreliable, then this can cause a whole case to collapse or
it may mean a suspect is not prosecuted. This has a negative impact on the outcome of a
trial because it does not lead to justice for the victims of crimes. For example, with the
Damilola Taylor case, the prosecution relied heavily on the witness of a girl named Bromley.
She stated that she saw what had happened. However, when in court the CPS realised she
had lied about her whereabouts and therefore this caused the whole case to collapse which
meant that none of the 4 suspects could be prosecuted for the murder of Damilola Taylor.
Therefore, this had a negative impact on the outcome of a trial by not leading to justice for
the victim, Damilola Taylor.
Furthermore, another negative impact that eye witnesses can have on the outcome of a
case is that it is possible for them to misremember information or for them to be so heavily
focused on the weapon of a crime scene, that they misinterpret or forget who the offender is.
Therefore, this has a negative impact on the outcome of a case because it means the police
may focus their attention on the wrong suspect, therefore this could lead to a potential
miscarriage of justice.
For example, this can be seen in the brief where the eye witness is not reliable. This is
because the homeless woman “came forward three days after hearing about the crime from
, her friend”. This shows how the eye witness in the Bobby Joe case is likely to forget valuable
details about the criminal act, or potentially misremember information. Furthermore, the fact
that they heard about the crime from a friend means that this is hearsay evidence which
therefore is not reliable in court. This then has a negative impact on the outcome of a case
because it means a jury may be unable to come to a verdict about the suspect, which does
not provide justice for the victims of crimes.
To conclude, witnesses can impact the outcome of a trial positively as the prosecution will
rely heavily on what an eye witness has to say, and therefore they can provide valuable
information about who potential offenders are, as well as what happened at a crime scene,
which helps to secure a conviction. On the other hand, eye witnesses must make sure they
are reliable to be able to have a positive impact on the outcome of a trial.
Experts
Expert witnesses are individuals that have specialist knowledge that other people from the
public will not have. Therefore, they can give their professional opinion too unlike other
witnesses who can only express what they saw. As a result expert witnesses can have a key
impact on the outcome of a case. Expert witnesses can be called on by both the prosecution
and the defence, and when complicated cases, a testimony given by an expert witness is
always highly valid and important as they will provide specialist knowledge that the jury is
unable to understand.
Therefore, one positive impact that expert witnesses will have on the outcome of a case is
that they can be very useful as they can clarify issues. This has a positive impact because it
can help the jury to understand why someone is guilty and therefore convince them to
prosecute the offender, which leads to justice for the victims of crimes. Therefore, when a
case relies on statistics or technical terms, the jury is more likely to believe the expert
witness even if they do not fully understand what they are saying.
This leads to a negative impact which is, that jurors often assume everything an expert
witness says is accurate and correct, due to the jury being unable to understand complicated
statistics or medical terms that have no meaning to everyday people. Therefore, this can
have a negative impact on the outcome of a case because it may lead to the jury assuming
that the suspect is guilty, which could therefore lead to a miscarraige of justice. A real life
case that illustrates how expert witnesses can have a negative impact on the outcome of a
trial when they provide inaccurate information is the case of Sally Clark. Here, when Clark
was on trial in 1999 for the murder of her two baby sons she was wrongfully convicted due to
the evidence presented by the expert witness, Sir Roy Meadows. Here, Sir Roy Meadows
gave incorrect mathematical statistics about the probability of two cot deaths happening in
the same family, stating that there was a 1 in a 73 million chance, when in reality it was a 1
in a 1000. However, due to the fact that the jury are ordinary people without this expert
knowledge, the jury did not think to check that what Sir Roy Meadows was saying in court
was fully correct. Therefore, this led to the jury assuming that Sally Clark was instantly guilty
and this therefore led to her wrongful prosecution. This case illustrates how expert witnesses
do not always have a positive impact on the outcome of a case, when they provide
misleading information.
Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal cases
Witnesses
The role of an eye witness in a criminal case is to describe what they saw happen during a
crime. Witnesses can have a key influence on the outcome of a case by providing details of
the incident and what potential offenders look like. Both the prosecuting and the defence can
call witnesses to support their case. They are normally expected to appear in person.
However, there are some exceptions like those who are deemed not competent to give
evidence or those who are vulnerable and therefore can give evidence through a video call.
The prosecution will present their examination and the defence will counter and question
what the prosecution presents, then they can re-examine the witnesses. The witness could
be questioned by the prosecution as well as the defence. Finally, it is up to the jury to
determine how much weight they decide to give an eye witness in court. Consequently, if a
witness appears to be more reliable then they will have a bigger impact on the outcome of a
case as it may mean the case sways more towards a not guilty verdict.
Therefore one positive impact that eye witnesses will have on the outcome of a case is that
they can help the jury to understand what could have happened at a crime scene and
therefore why someone is guilty. This is because eye witnesses were there in the present
moment and saw what happened. For example, with the Stephen Lawrence case, it was
Duwayne who saw the entire criminal act take place, and if the police would have asked him
what had happened, they would have been able to catch the killers.
On the other hand, sometimes what an eye witness says may not be taken seriously and this
can have a detrimental impact on the outcome of a whole case. For example, with the
Stephen Lawrence case, despite the fact that Duwayane saw what had happened, the police
failed to acknowledge his statements and it led to the killers not being prosecuted at first.
Furthermore, another negative impact that eye witnesses will have on the outcome of a case
is that if they are caught lying, or unreliable, then this can cause a whole case to collapse or
it may mean a suspect is not prosecuted. This has a negative impact on the outcome of a
trial because it does not lead to justice for the victims of crimes. For example, with the
Damilola Taylor case, the prosecution relied heavily on the witness of a girl named Bromley.
She stated that she saw what had happened. However, when in court the CPS realised she
had lied about her whereabouts and therefore this caused the whole case to collapse which
meant that none of the 4 suspects could be prosecuted for the murder of Damilola Taylor.
Therefore, this had a negative impact on the outcome of a trial by not leading to justice for
the victim, Damilola Taylor.
Furthermore, another negative impact that eye witnesses can have on the outcome of a
case is that it is possible for them to misremember information or for them to be so heavily
focused on the weapon of a crime scene, that they misinterpret or forget who the offender is.
Therefore, this has a negative impact on the outcome of a case because it means the police
may focus their attention on the wrong suspect, therefore this could lead to a potential
miscarriage of justice.
For example, this can be seen in the brief where the eye witness is not reliable. This is
because the homeless woman “came forward three days after hearing about the crime from
, her friend”. This shows how the eye witness in the Bobby Joe case is likely to forget valuable
details about the criminal act, or potentially misremember information. Furthermore, the fact
that they heard about the crime from a friend means that this is hearsay evidence which
therefore is not reliable in court. This then has a negative impact on the outcome of a case
because it means a jury may be unable to come to a verdict about the suspect, which does
not provide justice for the victims of crimes.
To conclude, witnesses can impact the outcome of a trial positively as the prosecution will
rely heavily on what an eye witness has to say, and therefore they can provide valuable
information about who potential offenders are, as well as what happened at a crime scene,
which helps to secure a conviction. On the other hand, eye witnesses must make sure they
are reliable to be able to have a positive impact on the outcome of a trial.
Experts
Expert witnesses are individuals that have specialist knowledge that other people from the
public will not have. Therefore, they can give their professional opinion too unlike other
witnesses who can only express what they saw. As a result expert witnesses can have a key
impact on the outcome of a case. Expert witnesses can be called on by both the prosecution
and the defence, and when complicated cases, a testimony given by an expert witness is
always highly valid and important as they will provide specialist knowledge that the jury is
unable to understand.
Therefore, one positive impact that expert witnesses will have on the outcome of a case is
that they can be very useful as they can clarify issues. This has a positive impact because it
can help the jury to understand why someone is guilty and therefore convince them to
prosecute the offender, which leads to justice for the victims of crimes. Therefore, when a
case relies on statistics or technical terms, the jury is more likely to believe the expert
witness even if they do not fully understand what they are saying.
This leads to a negative impact which is, that jurors often assume everything an expert
witness says is accurate and correct, due to the jury being unable to understand complicated
statistics or medical terms that have no meaning to everyday people. Therefore, this can
have a negative impact on the outcome of a case because it may lead to the jury assuming
that the suspect is guilty, which could therefore lead to a miscarraige of justice. A real life
case that illustrates how expert witnesses can have a negative impact on the outcome of a
trial when they provide inaccurate information is the case of Sally Clark. Here, when Clark
was on trial in 1999 for the murder of her two baby sons she was wrongfully convicted due to
the evidence presented by the expert witness, Sir Roy Meadows. Here, Sir Roy Meadows
gave incorrect mathematical statistics about the probability of two cot deaths happening in
the same family, stating that there was a 1 in a 73 million chance, when in reality it was a 1
in a 1000. However, due to the fact that the jury are ordinary people without this expert
knowledge, the jury did not think to check that what Sir Roy Meadows was saying in court
was fully correct. Therefore, this led to the jury assuming that Sally Clark was instantly guilty
and this therefore led to her wrongful prosecution. This case illustrates how expert witnesses
do not always have a positive impact on the outcome of a case, when they provide
misleading information.
