FCS360 midterm 1
What is a vaild arrest?
An arrest made with reasonable and probably grounds. Justifiable from objective POV
R. v. Stinchcombe
Crown must disclose all relevant information to defence. If any revelant info is not disclosed (lost or not submitted), it is the Crown's fault.
R. v. Pascal
Disclosure: criminal records and outstanding charges must be disclosed
R. v. Lifchus
Trier of fact must be sure that accused is guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)
What evidence can/ cannot be admitted into court?
Evidence must be relevant, material, not barred by rules of admissibility, and not subject to discretionary exclusion. Relevant evidence may not be submitted if it has moral prejudice, time prejudice, or logical prejudice.
Palmer v. the Queen
Fresh evidence: evidence shouldn't be admitted if it could've been admitted at trial but wasn't. If fresh evidence was at trial, trial could've had a different result
R. v. Mohan
Threshold admissibility criteria for experts: logically relevant, necessity in aiding trier of fact, absence of exclusionary rule, qualified expert and reliable science (novel science only)
White Burgess
Defines qualified expert as impartial, independent and unbiased. Bias assessed at threshole admissibility stage
R. v. Abbey
Logical relevance: makes existence/non-existence of fact in issue more/less likely than it would be without evidence
R. v. Sekhon
Judge must continuously assess and enforce scope of expert (ongoing)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
Reliable evidence from novel science: testable and tested, peer reviewed and publsihed, known potential error rates and existing standards, accepted in science community
R. v. France
Expert witness: did not uphold duty to court, was a biased expert. Believed child died b/c of France but not based on science
R. v. Caslake
warrentless searches are prima facie unreasonable. Law must authorize search except when searching before arrest and belongings seized upon arrest
R. v. Prosa
Lost blood sample that defence wanted to test for drug. Crown must disclose so burden on them (even though CFS lost it)
R. v. Nastis
Disclosure of Draft reports made by experts: Crown mjust diclose all reports (draft and final b/c may include different things). Defence has no such obligation
Boucher v. the Queen
Crown cannot win or lose a case, they only represent public interest. All they want is justice.
R. v. Murray
Defence lawyer witheld incriminating evidence from court b/c thought it was part of confidentiality but they cannot conceal, alter, or destroy inciminating evidence or hinder an investigation
R. v. Lyttle
Counsel cannot put assertations to witness they know to be false
R. v. Awer
Judge must scrutenize expert evidence same amount no matter who submitted the expert evidence (crown or defence)
R. v. Donison
expert evidence on cartridge linking was admissible but found meaningless by judge b/c it did not follow PCAST rules (no error rates, no standards, no proficiency testing, not validated). Not valid evidence
R. v. Creary
Evidence about cartridge linking was admissible and had weight b/c with presented evidence (not PCAST), judge concluded that is was reliable eivdence. Proficiency testing, validated, presented error rates.
R. v. Hadi
Evidence on cartridge linking was relied upon and met PCASt qualifications. PCAST was not submitted evidence but was relied upon to determine reliability of evidence.
R. v. Parent
First time DNA was used in court. Used to exclude someone as suspect
R. v. McNally
DNA implicated an accused and admissibility was challenged
R. v. Terceria
Defence argued DNA was novel science but at the time, novel science did not have any additional scrutiny
R. v. SAB
DNA warrants do not violate section 8 of charter (reasonable grounds is good enough for a DNA warrant).
R. v. Rodgers
No charter rights violated when collecting DNA from convicted offenders
R. v. Stillman
Discarded DNA can be collected with no warrant (violation of charter rights when suspect is in police custody but no violation in any other case).
R. v. Dean
using software like STRmix to analyze comples DNA samples is admissible even when expert doesn't know the code. expert must still be proficient and unbiased.
People v. Jennings
First time fingerprint ID was used in court
Brandon Mayfield
False ID from fingerprint. Spanish train bombing. Contextual bias
R. v. Beare, R. v. Higgins
collecting fingerprints of unconvicted suspects is constitutional
R. v. Bornyk
Judge did independent research about fingerprints (not presented to expert in court). New trial and conviction. Fingerprint on doll
R. v. Lepage
Drawing an inference of possession based on fingerprints is dependent of circumsatnces (prints of LSD bag)
R. v. Mars
Accussed's fingerprints on evidence cannot be assumed as highly culpatory evidence (pizza box).
Todd Willingham
False conviction caused by fire expert's testimony (based on myths) and jailhouse informant. Sentenced to death and excecuted. Later found that jailhouse informant lied and science found that arson should never have been concluded.
R. v. Yebes
False conviction b/c of fire expert evidence (accelerant used b/c first started in 3 different places) and pathology evidence (boys died before fire started). Boys known to play with fire. Set standard: an unreasonable verdict is one that no properly instructed jury could have rendered.
Romeo Phillion
Second hand evidence (hearsay) is inadmissible when its purpose os to establish the truth. Phillion wanted to submit polygraph evidence of him telling story but did not go to witness stand during trial. Wrongful conviction but released. black sheep argument by defence
R. v. Lavallee
Battered woman syndrome. expert evidence can be based on both admissible and inadmissible/hearsay evidence
James Driskell and Perry Harder
Wrongful conviction: based on 2 unsavory witnesses (that were paid to testify) and hair analysis. Hair analyst determined hair in Driskell's truck was Harder's but 13 years later was determined to belong to 3 different people, not one being Harder. Lesage: hair microscopy shouldn't be used for individualization
Leighton Hay
Wrongful conviction: measured diameters of hair from Hay and from grabge hair and was totally different therefore not his hair. Hair analysis is good for exclusionary purposes but not indizidualization. Picky dreads, haircut to change appearance, hair in toilet and garbage.
Louise Reynolds
Daughter died by Dog attack. Charles Smith expert saying 80 stab wounds and excluded dog bites even though not an expert in that. Tunnel vision w/ police
R. v. Unger
Wrongful conviction based on hair analysis and Mr. big confession. 3 bitemarks on deceased excluded Unger but not as strong as other evidence
R. v. Streiling
Mr. Big confession saying he murdered stepson making most of the Crown's case. Defence: Noah came from dad's house w/ bites. excluded everyone but stepmom. Crown had weak case and bitemark was pretty strong so Streiling was acquited