Case Briefs- Criminal Law

the court noted that americas criminal justice

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: edures. It attempts to maximize the deterrent effect by encouraging corporations to be more diligent in supervising the business activities of its agents done on behalf of the corporation. People v. Collins (Probabilistic evidence = no good) • • • • • Collins and his wife were accused of robbery. o Collins was a black man with a beard and his wife was a blond white woman. At Trial, the prosecutors had difficulty establishing a positive identification, so they resorted to probabilistic evidence. o Basically, they brought in a math professor as an expert witness to say that since witnesses claimed that the crime was committed by a 'black man with a beard and a blond white woman' there was an overwhelming probability that the crime was committed by any couple answering to such distinctive characteristics. Only 1 in 12 million couple share these characteristics. The Trial Court found Collins guilty. He appealed. The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. o The California Supreme Court found that guilt cannot be determined by odds, and that the introduction of probabilistic evidence infected the case with fatal error. The testimony itself lacked an adequate foundation in both evidence and statistical theory. • The expert appeared to have pulled the statistical evidence out of his butt. The testimony distracted the jury from its proper function of weighing evidence on the issues and made them rely upon an irrelevant mathematical demonstration. Basically, even if you could prove that few couple met the description, this evidence has no relevance as to whether or not Collins and his wife committed the crime. o What if the true criminal was wearing a fake beard? How would that skew the statistics? Gideon v. Wainwright (Right to counsel) Brief Fact Summary. Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida state court. He appeared before the state Court, informing the Court he was indigent and requested that the Court appoint him an attorney. The Court declined to appoint Gideon an attorney, stating that under Florida law, the only time an indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel is when he is charged with a capital offense. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case overruled Betts and held that the right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial. Failure to pr...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/06/2014 for the course POLISCI 122 at Stanford.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online