Evidence in Criminal Trials

Evidence serves as the cornerstone of criminal proceedings, fundamentally determining case outcomes. The prosecution shoulders the "Burden of Proof," requiring them to present compelling evidence that establishes the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Types of evidence include:

• Forensic evidence $DNA, fingerprints$ - considered most crucial due to its scientific basis
• Physical evidence - highly valued for its objective nature
• Testimonial evidence - including witness and expert statements

Key Concept: The "Burden of Proof" represents both a strength for the prosecution, as they lead in demonstrating guilt, and a weakness for the defence, who must respond reactively rather than presenting their own counter-evidence.

While forensic and physical evidence are typically viewed as more reliable than testimonial evidence, they aren't without flaws. Evidence can be contaminated during collection, processing, or storage, potentially leading to serious miscarriages of justice.

The case of Adam Scott clearly illustrates this danger. In 2011, Scott was wrongfully charged with rape when his DNA $from a previous, unrelated incident$ contaminated a sample from a rape victim due to the reuse of laboratory equipment. Despite being hundreds of miles from the crime scene, he was arrested and detained before charges were eventually dropped in 2012.

Testimonial evidence, while often emotionally impactful and relatable to jurors, presents different challenges. Personal accounts lack the objective reliability of physical evidence and may contain errors or inconsistencies, yet they can profoundly influence jury decisions due to their human element.

Evidence ultimately shapes trial outcomes because of its perceived validity and the substantial weight jurors place on it when determining whether a defendant should be convicted or acquitted.

Media Influence on Criminal Cases

The legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamentally important but frequently disregarded by media outlets. When suspects are identified in the press, it creates an implication of guilt that can severely damage reputations regardless of legal outcomes.

The 2012 Leveson Report attempted to address this issue by establishing guidelines preventing the publication of suspects' identities except in exceptional circumstances.

Important Concept: Media coverage significantly shapes public perception of cases, potentially prejudicing judicial proceedings by creating bias before evidence is formally presented in court.

The Hillsborough Disaster represents a powerful example of harmful media portrayal. Press reports depicted Liverpool football supporters as antagonistic and responsible for the tragedy, intensifying the suffering of bereaved families and survivors. This negative characterisation unfairly labelled fans as "instigators" of the disaster.

Similarly, Colin Stagg's case demonstrates media-driven prejudice. When suspected of Rachel Nickell's murder, extensive media coverage highlighted his "creepy" demeanour, fueling public suspicion. This portrayal contributed to his wrongful conviction and 13-month imprisonment before his innocence was established.

The media's impact on criminal proceedings creates serious concerns:

• It contradicts the presumption of innocence
• It can influence judges and juries, creating bias
• It prioritises sensationalism over accuracy, especially in high-profile cases
• It can contribute to miscarriages of justice

Witness Testimonies

Witness statements provide valuable evidence for both prosecution and defence. During trials, witnesses undergo "examination in chief" by the party presenting them and "cross-examination" by the opposing side.

Jurors often form initial impressions of witnesses based on appearance, and a witness's demeanour can significantly influence jury opinions. Emotional testimonies particularly impact jurors, sometimes raising questions about credibility.

The Impact of Witness and Expert Testimony

Witness testimonies carry significant persuasive power in court proceedings. Their emotional nature often resonates with jurors more deeply than physical evidence, embedding in the subconscious and potentially influencing final decisions.

However, witness testimonies face important limitations:

• Memory deterioration over time
• Gaps in recall for traumatic events
• Susceptibility to suggestion

Research Spotlight: Loftus' 1970s studies demonstrated that memory is highly malleable. New information introduced between witnessing an event and recalling it can significantly alter what people remember, raising questions about testimony reliability.

The passage of time between an incident and court proceedings can significantly impact memory clarity, affecting the reliability of witness accounts. Additionally, victims of violent crimes may experience memory gaps due to trauma, further complicating testimony.

Expert Witnesses in Court

Expert testimonies hold exceptional influence in legal proceedings due to their specialised knowledge and perceived credibility. These professionals use their expertise to provide insight into technical aspects of cases, helping juries understand complex evidence.

The advantages of expert witnesses include:

• Clarifying technical evidence for judge and jury
• Adding credibility to a case through professional authority
• Potentially swaying jury opinion due to their perceived reliability

Both prosecution and defence benefit from expert testimony, as juries typically trust these witnesses based on their credentials and specialised knowledge.

However, this trust can become problematic. Juries may not fully understand technical terminology but still defer to expert opinion based on perceived authority. This unconditional trust has occasionally led to miscarriages of justice.

The case of Sir Roy Meadow illustrates this danger. His expert testimonies in cot death and child abuse cases during the 1980s and 1990s contributed to multiple wrongful convictions, including Angela Cannings and Sally Clark. The Crown Prosecution Service heavily relied on his statements without sufficient verification, highlighting the potential risks when expert testimony goes unchallenged.

Political and Judicial Influences on Criminal Cases

Political Impact

Politics significantly influences criminal case outcomes through its power to shape laws and sentencing guidelines. This influence can create external pressures on judges and magistrates to impose harsher sentences, potentially affecting jury perspectives.

Case Study: The 2011 London Riots demonstrate political influence on sentencing. Courts were directed to increase sentences by 25% as a deterrent, showing how political pressure can directly impact punishment severity.

The Role of the Judiciary

Judges bear substantial responsibility for case outcomes through their verdicts and sentencing decisions. Their legal expertise gives them considerable authority in controlling court proceedings, which can potentially introduce bias.

Jurors, as laypeople, typically defer to judges' knowledge and experience, potentially creating an imbalance in how evidence is perceived.

Judges' critical powers and responsibilities include:

• Explaining relevant law to the jury
• Determining evidence admissibility
• Monitoring questioning by both sides
• Summarising key issues before jury deliberation
• Authority to dismiss cases or order retrials

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 permits judges to conduct juryless trials in specific circumstances, such as potential jury tampering or complex fraud cases where juries might struggle with technical details.

Sources of judicial bias can include:

• Class background - In 2019, 65% of senior judges received private education, and 75% attended Oxford or Cambridge
• Gender imbalance - 65% of judges are male, potentially affecting approaches to cases like sexual assault
• Implicit bias - As demonstrated in a 2023 case where a judge remarked "He looks like a criminal to me" about defendant Leon Liggins

This last example resulted in Liggins' drug offence case being dismissed by the Court of Appeals due to the judge's prejudicial comments. Despite the judge claiming impartiality, the case highlights how judicial bias can necessitate case reconsideration and lead to miscarriages of justice.

Judicial Bias and Legal Representation

Judicial Decision-Making

Judges wield significant power in the courtroom, making determinations that can fundamentally affect case outcomes. Their responsibilities extend beyond simply applying the law to include managing evidence, questioning, and guiding juries.

The composition of the judiciary raises concerns about representational bias:

• 65% of senior judges received private education $2019 data$
• 75% attended Oxford or Cambridge universities
• 65% are male, potentially affecting approaches to gendered crimes

Critical Issue: The lack of diversity within the judiciary may lead to unconscious bias in certain types of cases, particularly those involving gender, class, or racial dimensions.

A striking example occurred in August 2023, when a judge's comment that a defendant "looks like a criminal to me" led to the dismissal of Leon Liggins' drug offence case by the Court of Appeals. This incident highlights how judicial bias, even if unintentional or implicit, can fundamentally undermine fair proceedings.

Barristers and Legal Teams

Barristers operate at the higher levels of the court system, representing either prosecution or defence after receiving case materials from solicitors. Their impact on case outcomes is considerable.

As highly trained professionals, barristers' use of specialist language presents both strengths and weaknesses:

• It demonstrates their expertise and authority
• It may confuse jurors, potentially leading to unfair decisions

Barristers employ persuasive techniques including emotive language to influence juries, though this approach can sometimes distract from the evidence itself.

The Influence of Legal Representation

The quality and characteristics of legal representation can significantly impact case outcomes, raising questions about equality within the justice system.

Barriers to Effective Representation

The high cost of barristers creates a significant disadvantage for many defendants. Legal expertise comes at a premium that the average person cannot afford, potentially creating disparities in access to justice.

Research Insight: Efran's 1974 study suggested that trials with more charismatic or 'good-looking' barristers were more likely to achieve favourable outcomes, similar to how more charismatic defendants might receive lighter sentences.

This research highlights concerning non-legal factors that may influence trial results, suggesting that perception and presentation can sometimes outweigh evidence and legal arguments.

Financial Constraints in Legal Proceedings

The Stephen Lawrence case provides a powerful example of financial barriers to justice. When the Lawrence family pursued a private prosecution, they were deemed ineligible for legal aid. This necessitated the establishment of a special fund to cover court expenses.

This case highlights several key issues:

• Financial constraints can limit access to quality legal representation
• The legal system may disadvantage those without substantial resources
• Alternative funding methods may be necessary to pursue justice
• Systemic inequalities can affect case outcomes regardless of evidence

The ability to afford skilled legal representation remains a significant factor in determining how effectively one's case is presented, raising fundamental questions about equality before the law and whether justice is truly accessible to all.