The lawyers each make an opening statement outlining what they intend to prove. Jurors should understand that these opening statements are not evidence. Afterward, the plaintiff is usually the first to present evidence to support his or her position, and the defendant follows with his or her evidence. Most evidence is presented through the oral testimony of witnesses who speak under oath.
Fill out the Opening Statement Worksheet to help you prepare for your day in court. Clearly state what you want the judge to order and why, a short summary of your case, and who you will be calling as witnesses. You will need to question the witnesses you call. For a direct examination you will need to ask open questions which are questions that allow for explanations.
Open questions usually begin with words like who, what, why, where, how, tell me about, or describe. Leading questions as the name indicates leads the answerer to a particular answer.
They are usually answered with a yes or no. Leading questions allow you to control what the witness talks about and often helps you get the witness to give a specific answer. You cannot ask leading questions of the witnesses you call. The other party will also be calling witnesses, once they have questioned them it is your turn. You are allowed to ask leading questions during cross-examination.
The closing argument is not another chance to give evidence. You may only refer to points on which evidence has already been given. Fill in the Closing Statement Worksheet to help you prepare but be sure to fill it in with more detail during your trial. Be sure to clearly write down what order you want the judge to make or not make, a brief outline of the reasons why and your legal position the evidence and laws supporting your case. Going through a trial can be very stressful. Although the rules can be confusing, they are designed to protect your rights, and you can use them to help you plan for your court appearance.
Even though courts work differently, this publication will introduce you to the nuts and bolts of presenting evidence at a hearing. As you read it, please consider the kind of help you might want as you prepare and present your case.
This document contains summaries of published state court decisions of interest related to a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint custody to a parent who has engaged in domestic violence against the other parent. Learn More. Download Publication 1. Article 9 — McCracken K To-scale crime scene models: a great visual aid for the jury.
J Forensic Identification — McDougall R Designing the courtroom of the future. Paper delivered at the international conference on court excellence. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice Transforming our justice system. Mullins RA Virtual views: exploring the utility and impact of terrestrial laser scanners in forensics and law.
University of Windsor. Electronic Theses and Dissertation Paper. University of Windsor, Narayanan A, Hibbin S Can animations be safely used in court? Artif Intell Law 9 4 — McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Pointe LM The Michigan cyber court: a bold experiment in the development of the first public virtual courthouse. North Carolina J Law Technol 4 1. Article 5 — Rawson B The case for the technology-laden courtroom. Courtroom 21 project. Technology White Paper. Reiling D Technology for justice: how information technology can support judicial reform.
Leiden University Press, Reiling, Leiden. Wiley, New Jersey. Schofield D Using graphical technology to present evidence. Schofield D Animating evidence: computer game technology in the courtroom. J Inf Law Technol — Schofield D Playing with evidence: using video games in the courtroom.
Entertainment Comput 2 1 — Schofield D The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings. J Digit Forensic Secur Law 8 1 — High Technol Law J 9 2 — Wiggins EC The courtroom of the future is here: introduction to emerging technologies in the legal system. Download references. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. KS collected, analysed and interpreted the participant data regarding the use of technology in the criminal justice system with assistance from SF and JP. All authors were contributors in writing the manuscript and reading and approving the final manuscript. Correspondence to K. This study was considered using agreed university procedures and was approved by Staffordshire University. All data collected from the questionnaires was anonymised and it is not possible to identify the individuals who took part in the study through their statements or quotes.
Participants were asked to sign a consent form stating that they understand that the data collected during the study would be anonymised prior to any publication. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Reprints and Permissions. Sheppard, K. Experiences of evidence presentation in court: an insight into the practice of crime scene examiners in England, Wales and Australia.
Egypt J Forensic Sci 10, 8 Download citation. Received : 19 July Accepted : 17 February Published : 02 March Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search all SpringerOpen articles Search. Download PDF. Original Article Open Access Published: 02 March Experiences of evidence presentation in court: an insight into the practice of crime scene examiners in England, Wales and Australia K.
Abstract Background The ability to present complex forensic evidence in a courtroom in a manner that is fully comprehensible to all stakeholders remains problematic. Results A questionnaire study was conducted in this research to explore current technology used within courtrooms from the perspective of crime scene personnel involved in the presentation of complex crime scene evidence. Introduction The delivery of evidence in the UK Courts of Law in part involves extensive oral descriptions of events and evidence from an investigation, which can be a time consuming and laborious task Schofield Methods Participant questionnaires A qualitative phenomenological research study was conducted to explore the experiences of police service personnel regarding the current use of information technology in courtrooms and in their experience of evidence presentation.
The questions asked were as follows: 1. What is your job title and role within the criminal justice system? As part of your role, are you required to present evidence in a courtroom? Can you tell me what, if any, technology has been integrated into the courtroom? What has your experience been in terms of the introduction of new technology into the courtroom? Have there been any difficulties with technology being integrated into the courtroom?
What has your experience been with the presentation of evidence in court? What has the response been to this method of presenting evidence a From the judges? Is the courtroom fully equipped to allow you to present this type of evidence? Do you feel there is anything, which needs improvement?
Can you give me your opinion on presenting evidence in this manner? Data analysis Thematic analysis based on Manker methodology, originally adapted from Guest et al. Results and discussion The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to explore and describe experiences of police service personnel with responsibilities within crime scene examination with regard to the current use of technology within the courtroom.
0コメント