Book All Semester Assignments at 50% OFF! ORDER NOW
  • Subject Name : Law

Challenges and Relevance of Evidence

Ken lives in Barbie Land on the Gold Coast in Australia. He is now being charged with fraud and murder since his Mojo Dojo Casa House caught fire. If Ken's lawyers want to beat the charges against him, the best criminal defence firm in Brisbane told them to think about what to do. Things went badly for him after he broke up with Barbie, which is why he was charged. It was hard for him with money and his mind after they broke up. These tips on evidence are meant to help one carefully separate the evidence that the Crown wants to use from the witnesses. Before his case, Ken needs to think about what might go wrong and how to stay safe. Ken's memories from before the fire, written proof, and the experts' ideas need to be put together in a way that makes sense for the case. Consider how important the details are and how they can help or hurt the case. Every point Ken wants to make in his case needs a lot of thought as it is so important. He could prove that he did not do the things that people think he did. Now more than ever, it is important to fully understand the evidence and what it means for Ken's case. This will help one win this tough case in court.

Rumor has it that Ken caused fires and stole stuff. In order to prove their case against him, the Crown must present substantial and well considered evidence of his guilt. Important documents and evidence will be used by the government to support their claims. The plot is going to heat up now. Karen, who was once Ken's girlfriend, provides crucial information to the defense. Much of Ken's life shifted following the split. Maybe he became addicted to drinking and overindulged before the fire. Her explanations may shed light on these shifts. Particularly if they attempt to pin the blame on Ken or deduce his desires, she may have omitted some details from her testimony in court. However now that they're apart, it could reveal just how bad his mental health has gotten. The peculiar Skipper was an important witness, yet the police had never heard of him. Her description of the fire night, along with other accounts of Ken, adds depth to the narrative. The skipper states that Ken arrived at the beach just in time for the event to begin. The timing and nature of what is said to have been done by Ken would be affected if this were accurate or not.

However, things go badly when Skipper does not join in, and some of what she says is questioned, especially when it is seen as gossip. This means that her data might not be as strong. Someone from the business world Even though Mr. Flame is great at putting out fires, he is having trouble since he does not know much about accelerants or the tests that were done at the crime scene. There's a chance that his strong feelings about using an accelerant could be called into question since he has not been taught how to find them. The defence might also ask Mr Flame about the type and number of accelerants that were used and how they might have been linked to Ken's drinking when they questioned him about his claims. People like Mr. Music, a popular musician, and Ms. Adjuster, who took care of Ken's insurance claim, are witnesses for the Crown who help their case. As per Ms. Adjuster, Ken lied about how much he smoked and how much money he had. Now, it is not quite right to count on him as much, so the insurance claim is less likely to be paid. However, the agreement Mr Music signed and the claims he made about Ken's money might help show why the crimes happened [3] .

The Crown has a good case against Ken. They have witness statements and important papers like security footage and financial records. This is important as it helps the defence figure out what problems, flaws, and limits the prosecution's case might have. Things that the Crown says must be carefully looked over before the hearing [4] .

Potential Challenges and Issues with the Evidence

The Crown has some good proof in Ken's case; however, it is not perfect. This could make it harder to show a clear link between Ken and the fraud and arson charges. Something very hard to do is figure out if certain words are true and important. It is important to know what Barbie said about how much Ken drank and did drugs after they broke up. It might be helpful to know what happened, however, it might be mean or cruel to try to guess what Ken meant. It is very important to find the right mix between how strong the proof is and how partial it might be. Without Skipper's word, would not have known where Ken was the night of the fire. They said mean things about her, so she does not want to be a part of it. Some people might not believe what she says, and she might want to check out what she thinks Ken said more closely. One of the experts Mr. Flame is annoying since he knows a lot yet would not say how he knows it. Since he has not been taught to spot them, people might not believe what he says about the fire starters. A big way for the defense to question Mr Flame's results would be to ask what kind of accelerants were used and how they were linked to Ken's drinking [5] .

It is also unclear how the evidence from Mr. Music and Ms. Adjuster affects Ken's credibility. Ms. Adjuster claims that Ken provided false information regarding his smoking habits and financial situation. The likelihood of his insurance claim being paid is lower, and others might not like him as much. Regarding the agreement and Ken's funds, what Mr. Music says is also accurate. People would start to question Ken's story and try to figure out why terrible things happened after that. Bank data and police footage are two forms of evidence that can be utilized in conjunction with one another. When they bring up time and money, it is not apparent what they mean. Since the individual holding the box and looking so much like Ken is not easily identifiable, the authenticity of the security footage may be called into question. There may be other interpretations of the money papers [6] . It is imperative that Ken handles these matters competently to ensure his safety. Thoroughly reviewing the data to identify any issues or gaps is essential for a solid defense strategy. In addition, it needs to verify that the evidence is valid, significant, and acceptable. In order to effectively counter the Crown's case, the defense must be aware of every possible error in the evidence.

Potential Inadmissible Items

In his defence against allegations of arson and fraud, Ken will rely on arguments that undermine the Crown's case and clever use of the evidence. Ken may be able to mount a defense that casts doubt on the allegations leveled against him. The primary strategy for safety was that Ken had no intention of starting the fire. Ken may have some leverage if he says he suspected his drinking contributed to the fire. The extremely combustible bed linens might have been a result of split and accumulated alcohol, which he should have mentioned. Their goal is to make it appear as though the fire was an accidental result of a habit rather than a deliberate act of arson. Adding expert or scientific evidence of how alcohol residue might catch fire will strengthen Ken's argument even further. It is imperative that they prove that Ken's account of the reasons for his actions cannot be believed [7] . This further strengthens his argument.

The Crown's claim of fraud might not be as strong if it is shown that the insurance claim was a real attempt to help with house bills and not part of a plan. If there are no financial records or expert opinions to back up Ken's claim that he is having money troubles, one would not believe him. Since the split, Ken has changed since he drinks more, as Barbie said. This is good and bad. Getting Ken to do things in a certain way might help, however, it might also make him angry and weak, which could start a fire. The fact that Ken is not angry or up to no good could help the judges believe that he is not guilty. Also, one should question the proof that Mr. Flame gives from experts. People might not believe that accelerants caused the fire if one tells them that Mr Flame has not had any official training in finding them and asks them how sure they are that his results are about what caused the fire. Ken's case would be much stronger if he hired a different expert to argue against Mr. Flame's findings or give him new ones [8] .

The written evidence and witness statements should also be carefully looked over as part of Ken's defence plan. The goal is to find contradictions or other reasons that make the prosecution's case seem less likely. Many things need to be looked at to show that Ken is innocent and call into question the Crown's story. These include the money, the witnesses' trustworthiness, and the scientific evidence [9] . When making a plan for Ken's defence, it is very important to use all the proof, expert opinions, and witness statements and also to go against the Crown's case smartly.

Issues and Considerations in Witness Testimony

Since Ken is facing charges of theft and arson, it is crucial to thoroughly examine all pieces of evidence and witness statements to determine their usefulness and potential connection to the charges. The conference is significant as of the testimony of witnesses and the documentation that can be presented in court. What Barbie said reveals a lot about Ken's growth since their breakup. One might not believe her if she claims Ken acted maliciously as he meant to harm people, even though her research might provide light on the situation. It is crucial to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of using her evidence to either strengthen or weaken the case before making a final decision. Since it reveals where Ken was and what he supposedly said at the beach on the night of the fire, Kuyper's proof is crucial. It may be difficult to believe her since she does not wish to participate. Some rumours may not even be true [10] . Before deciding how much credence to give her account, the court must determine how veracious it is and how well it matches with other evidence.

Mr. Flame must give his expert opinion. He says that accelerants were found at the scene of the crime. However, since he does not know much about the subject, his results will be carefully checked to make sure they are correct and make sense. In order to counter the prosecution's story, it is important to ask if his results are all that they seem to be and to bring up other possible reasons, like Ken's drinking issues. Written proof, such as security video and financial records, can also give one a timetable and background. One should still try to figure out what they mean and what other answers might be possible. This is very important to make sure these papers are real and to look for mistakes or other points of view that could help the defense lose their case. Both written evidence and witness reports need to be carefully read to see if they are correct if they are relevant, and if there are any issues with them <atarget="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#_ftn11"> [11] . To attack the Crown's case and make people question whether Ken is guilty, knowing the pros and cons of each piece of evidence is one of the most important parts of Ken's defence.

Sufficiency of Evidence for Ken's Conviction and Jury Directions

People who support Ken will have a hard time since he admitted things. The fact that he told the insurance estimator that he did not smoke goes against evidence that might show otherwise. This makes him look less trustworthy, which could hurt his defence. These conflicting statements could be seen as him admitting things that are against his own best interests. This would make him less trustworthy and make it harder for his insurance claim to be approved. As they have to show Ken's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown is in charge of the case [12] . However, Ken's words that do not make sense make it hard for him to be innocent. The prosecution might be able to use Ken's dishonest behaviour as proof of guilt or as a reason for the crimes they say he did to help their case.

The defense should prepare for these remarks in advance so that they are less devastating. They may claim that Ken's words were a result of his hurt feelings over the split, or they could claim that he was just not intending to lie [13] . Highlighting Ken's vulnerability at the time could provide evidence that these remarks were a result of stress rather than an intentional attempt to deceive. If individuals question the veracity of the witnesses' accounts and the credibility of the proof, it may not have the impact that Ken claimed it would. In their pursuit of casting doubt on the Crown's case, the defense may highlight its shortcomings and provide alternative interpretations of the evidence. A delicate balancing act lies in determining the potential impact of Ken's statements on events while simultaneously developing a narrative that minimizes their significance [14] . A complex defense strategy including strategic arguments and background knowledge is necessary to address the many potential criticisms leveled against one.

Advice on Ken's Testimony and Evidential Considerations

As the jury instructions for Ken's trial are being prepared, it is imperative that the most important legal considerations pertaining to the charges of arson and fraud as outlined in the 1899 Criminal Code of Queensland be taken into account. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove Ken's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury should be made aware of this. It is critical to provide a detailed explanation of the legal implications of the allegations of arson and fraud so that the jury may make an informed decision [15] . The specific acts that constitute these crimes and the inference of purpose are necessary elements.

The jury should also be briefed on how to evaluate witnesses' credibility, identify pertinent evidence, and anticipate the potential effects of conflicting testimony on Ken's case [16] . One should include accelerant expert testimony and proof of Ken's actions in your systematic examination of the materials. Pay close attention to these directions. One must not assume anything about Ken's guilt before one knows how to interpret his confessions in the context of his post-breakup mental state. Additionally, the jury needs to be informed that bad media coverage could affect their verdict and that they should rely only on the evidence given in court. Following the cornerstones of criminal proceedings—the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proof beyond a reasonable doubt—this evaluation will be carried out impartially and fairly.

Now that Ken is facing charges of theft and arson, it is crucial to thoroughly examine the evidence and formulate a well-planned defense strategy. It is not a perfect proof by Crown. Example: it is easy to cast doubt on the reliability of expert judgments, on the veracity of witness statements, and on the plausibility of Ken's potential claims. Ken did not intend to do the things he is being accused of, so it is important to address the potential weaknesses in the Crown's case. A solid defense can be constructed with this [17] . It will be crucial to handle conflicting testimony from witnesses, challenge the findings of experts, and put Ken's statements into perspective in light of his emotional state following the splitting. It might be wise to give some of the suggestion’s further consideration. To give just a few examples, it's crucial to note that the arsonist did not want to cause harm, that the Crown's explanation for their actions is illogical, and that witness testimony may differ. To begin, you must thoroughly examine the evidence to discover alternative interpretations and obtain expert opinions to refute the Crown's expert testimony. To prove that the Crown's story is false, a thorough defense strategy is required, one that can handle the hard evidence. Emphasizing Ken's innocence based on substantial evidence that contradicts the prosecution's claims is crucial. One can improve the case's outcome with this.

Reference list

Ahmed, S.R., 2020. Table of Statutes. In Preventing Identity Crime: Identity Theft and Identity Fraud (pp. 712-726). Brill Nijhoff.

Areeda, P.E., Kaplow, L., Edlin, A.S. and Hemphill, C.S., 2021. Antitrust analysis: problems, text, and cases . Aspen Publishing.

Ben-David, G., 2021. Witness Preparation before Trial in Anglo-American Law: Aims, Dangers, and Remedies. Criminal Justice Ethics 40 (3), pp.179-213.

Brewer, N. and Doyle, J., 2021. Changing the face of police lineups: Delivering more information from witnesses. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 10 (2), pp.180-195.

Chuasanga, A. and Victoria, O.A., 2019. Legal Principles Under Criminal Law in Indonesia Dan Thailand. Jurnal Daulat Hukum (1), pp.131-138.

COSTANZO, J.J., 1997. The indispensability of Shepherd to the flock. AUSTRALIAN BAR REVIEW 16 (2), pp.138-149.

Denno, D.W., 2020. Gender, crime, and the criminal law defences. In The American Court System (pp. 144-244). Routledge.

Dyer, A., 2020. Progressive punitiveness in Queensland. Dyer, A.," Progressive Punitiveness in Queensland", Australian Bar Review .

Erentzen, C., Schuller, R.A. and Clow, K.A., 2021. Advocacy and the Innocent Client: Defence Counsel Experiences with Wrongful Convictions and False Guilty Pleas. Wrongful Conv. L. Rev. , p.1.

Fielder, L., 2022. Witness and Subject Interviewing. Animal Cruelty Investigations: A Collaborative Approach from Victim to Verdict™ , pp.45-52.

Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R. and Binder, G., 2021. Criminal law: Cases and materials . Aspen Publishing.

Lebensfeld, T.C. and Smalarz, L., 2022. Cross-Examination Fails to Safeguard Against Feedback Effects on Eyewitness Testimony. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review (3), pp.240-269.

Mendes, E.P., 2019. Peace and justice at the International Criminal Court . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Moore, W.C., 1960. Cross-Examining the Incompetent Document Examiner. Washburn LJ , p.533.

Morgan, E.M., 1946. The law of Evidence, 1941-1945. Harvard Law Review 59 (4), pp.481-576.

Poldrack, R.A., Huckins, G. and Varoquaux, G., 2020. Establishment of best practices for evidence for prediction: a review. JAMA psychiatry 77 (5), pp.534-540.

Rossner, M., Tait, D. and McCurdy, M., 2021. Justice reimagined: challenges and opportunities with implementing virtual courts. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 33 (1), pp.94-110.

Sloan, A.E., 2021. Basic legal research: Tools and strategies . Aspen Publishing.

[1] Morgan, E.M., 1946. The law of Evidence, 1941-1945. Harvard Law Review 59 (4), pp.481-576.

[2] Poldrack, R.A., Huckins, G. and Varoquaux, G., 2020. Establishment of best practices for evidence for prediction: a review. JAMA psychiatry 77 (5), pp.534-540.

[3] Fielder, L., 2022. Witness and Subject Interviewing. Animal Cruelty Investigations: A Collaborative Approach from Victim to Verdict™ , pp.45-52.

[4] Ben-David, G., 2021. Witness Preparation before Trial in Anglo-American Law: Aims, Dangers, and Remedies. Criminal Justice Ethics 40 (3), pp.179-213.

[5] Brewer, N. and Doyle, J., 2021. Changing the face of police lineups: Delivering more information from witnesses. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 10 (2), pp.180-195.

[6] Moore, W.C., 1960. Cross-Examining the Incompetent Document Examiner. Washburn LJ , p.533.

[7] Sloan, A.E., 2021. Basic legal research: Tools and strategies . Aspen Publishing.

[8] Erentzen, C., Schuller, R.A. and Clow, K.A., 2021. Advocacy and the Innocent Client: Defence Counsel Experiences with Wrongful Convictions and False Guilty Pleas. Wrongful Conv. L. Rev. , p.1.

[9] Denno, D.W., 2020. Gender, crime, and the criminal law defences. In The American Court System (pp. 144-244). Routledge.

[10] Mendes, E.P., 2019. Peace and justice at the International Criminal Court . Edward Elgar Publishing.

[11] Lebensfeld, T.C. and Smalarz, L., 2022. Cross-Examination Fails to Safeguard Against Feedback Effects on Eyewitness Testimony. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review (3), pp.240-269.

[12] Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R. and Binder, G., 2021. Criminal law: Cases and materials . Aspen Publishing

[13] Areeda, P.E., Kaplow, L., Edlin, A.S. and Hemphill, C.S., 2021. Antitrust analysis: problems, text, and cases . Aspen Publishing.

[14] Chuasanga, A. and Victoria, O.A., 2019. Legal Principles Under Criminal Law in Indonesia Dan Thailand. Jurnal Daulat Hukum (1), pp.131-138.

[15] Ahmed, S.R., 2020. Table of Statutes. In Preventing Identity Crime: Identity Theft and Identity Fraud (pp. 712-726). Brill Nijhoff.

[16] Dyer, A., 2020. Progressive punitiveness in Queensland. Dyer, A.," Progressive Punitiveness in Queensland", Australian Bar Review .

[17] COSTANZO, J.J., 1997. The indispensability of Shepherd to the flock. AUSTRALIAN BAR REVIEW 16 (2), pp.138-149.

Get Quote in 5 Minutes*

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Upload your assignment
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Get AI-Free Assignment Help From 5000+ Real Experts

Order Assignments without Overpaying
Order Now

My Assignment Services- Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

refresh