Take home exam
Both Question 1 and Question 2 must be answered.
Maximum 2000 words (for two questions)
1. D is charged with armed robbery. It is alleged that he committed the robbery in company with B. It is the defendant's case that he was not involved in the robbery. If allowed, a police witness will give evidence that D and B were arrested at B's house and that at the time of the arrest B said: "D planned and carried out the robbery. I just stood watch". D said nothing in response to this assertion. B has been given an indemnity from prosecution on condition that he gives evidence for the prosecution at the trial of D. However, the prosecutor is not now certain that she will call B as a witness.
The prosecution can also produce evidence of a record of interview with D, in which he admitted that he had committed the robbery in partnership with B. The defendant says that the record of interview has been concocted. He will seek to call evidence from a psychologist, who will say that D has a certain way of talking and thinking, that the alleged record of interview does not accord with D's typical talking and thinking mannerisms, and that it is likely that the record of interview has been fabricated. D also says that B has previous convictions for theft and fraud.
Advise as to the admissibility of the above evidence.
2. In a civil action alleging negligence arising from a traffic accident, the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries. She wishes to call evidence to show that the defendant was drinking red wine at a wine bar for two hours earlier on the day of the accident and that approximately an hour prior to the accident he had been observed driving his car at excessive speed. The plaintiff can also produce a witness who can say that he knows the defendant well, that he saw the defendant leaving the bar, that he appeared to be intoxicated, and that as he passed him the defendant said, in a slurred voice: "Watch how quickly I can exit this car park".
It is the defendant's case that he was not negligent, and, in the alternative, that the plaintiff contributed to her own injuries. The argument of contributory negligence is based on the submission that she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. To that end, the defendant wishes to call a medical doctor to give evidence as to the likely motion of a person involved in a motor vehicle accident who is not wearing a seat belt, and as to the lesser injuries that the plaintiff would likely have suffered had she been wearing a seat belt.
Advise as to the admissibility of the above evidence and, if any of the evidence is not admissible in the suggested form, whether and how it could be made admissible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment