Order with Clue Writers to get an Essay Customized for you by cluewriters

[caption id="attachment_788" align="alignnone" width="540"] Law[/caption]

we offer best essay writing services on law and legal issues. 

QUESTION

Question 1
Gary is on trial for murder for killing Jay. The prosecution’s theory is that Gary killed Jay to free
himself from a loan he took out from Jay. It is alleged that on the day of the murder Gary asked
Jay to come to Golden Pheasant Restaurant to discuss a business collaboration. From there, Gary
drove Jay to a wooded area and murdered him.
Gary denies the charge. He asserts that he did not see Jay on the day of the murder. He offers
Nancy to testify as his alibi witness. Nancy is to testify that on the day of the murder Gary was
with her for a whole day in a camp site four hundred miles away from the scene of the crime.
The prosecution learns that Nancy is in a romantic relationship with Gary.
The prosecution intends to call Jay’s colleague, Marty, to testify. Marty is to testify that on the
day of the murder at 7:00 p.m. he ran into Jay in front of the office building. Jay said to him:
“I’m going to Golden Pheasant Restaurant to have dinner with Gary.” Marty then saw Jay flag
down a taxi to go to the restaurant. The defense objects to the testimony, claiming it is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Gary’s secretary, Tiffany, to testify. Tiffany is to testify that on
the day of the murder she saw Gary on the phone. After the phone conversation, Gary said to her:
“I’ve just talked to Jay. He said he will come to have dinner with me at Golden Pheasant
Restaurant tonight.” The defense objects to the testimony, claiming it is hearsay.
Gary denies that he owed Jay any money, claiming that he had paid the loan back to Jay. He
offers his office manager, Advik, to testify. Advik is to testify that Gary had paid back the loan.

Before testifying Advik informs the court that he cannot take the oath over the Bible for he
believes in a different religion. Instead, he is willing to say: “I swear by my own gods that I will
tell the truth.” The prosecution challenges that, claiming that Advik is incompetent to testify
because of his refusal to take the traditional oath.
With regard to his testimony that Gary paid back the loan, Advik is to testify that he saw Gary
write a check at his desk and Gary then told him that the check was made payable to Jay to pay
back the loan. Advik then mailed the check for Gary. The prosecution objects to Advik’s
testimony, claiming he is incompetent to testify.
Question 2
Sam is charged with robbery. The prosecution alleges that Sam robbed a jewelry store. The
robbery took place at 1:00 p.m. on a Saturday. Sam and Danny committed the crime together.
Sam went into the store with a gun. He pointed the gun at the clerk and said: “Put the diamonds
in the bag or I’ll shoot you.” The clerk put the diamonds in the bag.
Danny, who had a long beard, was waiting outside in a getaway car. When Sam got into the car
after the robbery, Danny sped away. He was nervous and crashed the car into a utility pole. The
crash did not disable the car. As Danny’s car was speeding away, the owner of the jewelry store
ran out of the store. While chasing the car, he was yelling: “Robbery! Stop thief! Stop thief!”
Fred, standing at the street corner, saw store owner’s action.
Three months later, Sam and Danny were arrested. Danny confessed to the crime. He told the
police it was Sam’s idea to rob the store. Danny reached a plea deal and agreed to testify for the
prosecution. Three days before trial, Danny changed his mind. He told the prosecution that he
would not testify against Sam because Sam had threatened to harm his family if he would testify.
The prosecution offers the police officer who interrogated Danny to testify as to Danny’s
statement about Sam’s role in the crime. The defense objects, claiming that the officer’s
testimony would violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and it would be hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call the store clerk to testify about Sam’s statement in the store: “Put
the diamonds in the bag or I’ll shoot you.” The defense objects, claiming the testimony is
hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Fred to testify about the store owner’s conduct of chasing the
getaway car while yelling “Robbery! Stop thief! Stop thief!” The defense objects, claiming the
testimony is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Leon to testify about a phone conversation he had with his friend
Henry. On the day of the robbery, Henry saw Danny crash his car into the utility pole. At the
time he was on the phone with Leon. Over the phone Henry said calmly to Leon: “Look at that
guy with a long beard. He crashed his car into a pole.” The defense objects, claiming the
testimony is hearsay.

The prosecution intends to call Alice, Sam’s ex-girlfriend, to testify. Alice is to testify that about
a week after the robbery, Sam came to visit her. He said to her: “You broke up with me. Now
I’m rich. I have a lot of diamonds.” The defense objects, claiming the testimony is hearsay.

Law 

ANSWER

Evidence law issues and their applicable laws

During a trial in a court of law, credible evidence must be presented before the jury to come up with a conclusive and fitting verdict. In Gary's trial for murder and Sam's trial for robbery, we can identify different evidence law issues discussed below.

During Gary's case, the following evidence law issues can be identified. Hearsay testimony is seen in Gary's case. Cross-examination is evident. The prosecution intends to call Jay's colleague, Marty, to testify. The defense has the right to call their witnesses to testify on behalf of Gary's innocence. Seen from Gary's case, the prosecution intends to call Gary's secretary, Tiffany, to testify.

Whether a witness can give expert testimony is seen as an evidence law issue because the prosecution is willing to call a forensic expert to testify about the crime scene. Before testifying, Advik informs the court that he cannot take the oath over the Bible for he believes in a different religion. The prosecution challenges that, claiming that Advik is incompetent to testify because he refused to take the traditional oath.

The applicable law for hearsay testimony is Chapter 1, Article 14 of the Philippine Evidence Code. It means that the evidence is not credible to be used in a ruling.

The applicable law for cross-examining a witness is in Chapter 1, Article 19 of the Philippine Evidence Code. Chapter 1, Article 19 of the Philippine Evidence Code provides that: "in the examination of a witness. A party may examine his witness and is not limited to cross-examining the adverse party's witness." It means that a party may examine his witness, and he is not limited to cross-examining the adverse party's witness.

The applicable law for the defense's right to call their witnesses is Chapter 2, Article 39 of the Philippine Evidence Code. It provides that: The defense has the right to call their witnesses. The prosecution of a party is not limited to calling its witnesses.

The following evidence law issues emerge from the second case on Sam's trial.

Witnesses' statement is hearsay. There was no direct communication between Sam and the witness. Suppose the prosecution elicits testimony that is not eyewitness testimony. In that case, there is a violation of the confrontation clause, but it is based upon hearsay from a source that had no personal knowledge of the fact. The prosecution can use Alice's statement that Sam visited her a week after the robbery as circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt in committing this crime. The applicable law for violation of the confrontation clause is outlined in the following: The federal constitution does not protect the right to confront witnesses. The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes no provision for confrontation hearings.

An appellate court may impose a presumption of prejudice upon a prosecutor who calls a witness in the direct examination. A witness who has testified in the same trial as another accused or been involved in two or more previous trials is not subject to cross-examination by the accused in that trial.

The applicable law for falsifying a testimony is as follows: the Federal Rules of Evidence establish the rules for the admissibility of evidence in federal court. The rules are applicable for each federal court in the circuit, except that a judge may authorize the use of different rules to govern a specific case or type of case by local rule or order.

The applicable law for substitution for direct evidence of financial prosperity is: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, circumstantial evidence is not a substitute for direct proof. However, through inference, circumstantial evidence can be used to prove an element of a crime.

The underlying criminal activity that created the income from which the defendant purports to have withdrawn is relevant in determining whether or not that income was honestly earned and the value of those assets. The prosecution can show that the wealth deriving from these illegal activities has been dissipated by proving that it was dissipated elegantly or fraudulently.

The applicable law for all the above evidence law issues is the hearsay rule which gives any statement made out of court by a witness who is not available for cross-examination would be inadmissible in evidence( Damaska, 1997). One exception to this rule is that he might testify if the witness was subpoenaed by the party who called them to testify and put under oath at that time.

The above laws apply respectfully to the evidence law issues above, thus guiding the jury to make a credible verdict.

 

We provide best solutions to Essay Writing Services and possible questions students always ask.