Critical Thinking: Voir Dire, Eye Witness & Eye Testimony
Critical Thinking/Reaction Paper
QUESTION: What are the pros and cons of introducing eyewitnesses and expert testimony within the trial process? When juries apply jury nullification do you believe this is a legitimate legal strategy? Why or why not? What are the limitations of the law when employing these techniques and strategies?
CRITICAL THINKING/REACTION PAPER RUBRIC
3- page paper
Mechanics: Cover page; citations; references; format
Technical writing and Spelling: No typos or spelling errors; complete/succinct sentences; APA style; meets or exceeds page length.
Content: Writing is done in the active voice (first person); clarity and conciseness in articulating response; the content remains on task & summarized; no content has no fluff & doesn’t rehash course information.
Relevance/Analysis: Use of consistent analysis and reflection on the material; writing goes beyond simple writing; information is synthesized; the writer stays on task and uses original ideas.
Instructions:
1.APA format
2. Address the questions posed throughout the response.
3. Logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs that connects the topic.
4. Integrate clear, accurate, and well-developed support for the ideas presented.
4. Have at least two scholarly/peer-reviewed research articles related to the question. Use reach articles that address the question.
—
Voir Dire, Eye Witness & Eye Testimony
What are the pros and cons of introducing eyewitnesses and expert testimony within the trial process?
Law violations are committed all the time and everywhere, but some of these crimes often go unpunished due to lack of evidence. Eyewitness and expert testimony exist to give accounts of these offenses, where testimonies are a very crucial aspect of investigation and litigations (Watson, 2015). As such, in court, eyewitnesses and expert testimonies are used to identify the suspect by relying on their memory on a specific incident or crime. However, their account can only be regarded as credible in situations where the version of their account is comprehensible, cohesive and consistent (Watson, 2015). A clear understanding of the eyewitnesses and expert testimonies’ role in court proceedings can be made by looking into their pros and cons.
Pros of Eyewitnesses and Expert Testimonies
Eyewitnesses and expert testimonies can be used to demonstrate the chronology of events that led to a particular crime. Through the eyewitness and expert testimonies, the jury and lawyers can have a better understanding of the key facts about the case, since they explain how a particular crime was committed, the location and who are individuals involved in the crime (Pezdek, 2020). As such, through the accounts given by eyewitnesses and expert testimonies, the jury can have a better understanding of the motive of the crime, thus helping them to make the best decision possible about the case.
Another advantage is that eyewitness and expert testimonies accounts tend to be generally reliable. According to Pezdek (2020), a fresh testimony tends to have a higher chance of being admitted by the court, especially when the events that led to a given crime are still fresh in the witness or expert’s mind and are thus considered to be more reliable. As such, investigators, the jury and judges tend to know the best action taken in regards to a given case.
The Cons of Eyewitness and Expert Testimony
One of the main challenges of relying on eyewitness and expert testimonies is that sometimes it can contain sections where the eyewitness comes up with his account due to pressure. According to Pezdek (2020), fear or nervousness tends to affect the memory of a person. As such, the eyewitness is likely to suffer from memory losses if they feel nervous or fearful during testimony, a factor that can lead to them giving the wrong account of events. Such a situation implies that eyewitness and expert testimonies are not always accurate and can lead to the wrong decision being made by the jury or court.
Another concern is that sometimes relying solely on expert testimonies or eyewitnesses can lead to the conviction of the wrong person. Although the decision can still be changed during an appeal, the damage will already have been done since such a person will have lost his dignity or employment (Pezdek, 2020). Such a situation implies that if the eyewitness and expert testimonies fail to give accurate accounts of events, it can lead to the wrong decision being made by the jury or court, which would be lead to a suspect being punished wrongfully.
When juries apply jury nullification, do you believe this is a legitimate legal strategy?
Jury nullification happens when the jury decision returns a verdict of “not guilty” despite concluding that a defendant is guilty of a specific crime (Sanders, 2008). I believe that such a legal strategy is legitimate because the jury is not under pressure or being forced to convict the defendant, especially in a situation where they might feel that the law is applied unfairly. For instance, Sanders (2008) gives an example wherein a situation where a young woman gets brutally raped or murdered, with her attacker confessing but later released from custody on technicality grounds without facing any consequences. However, later on, the woman’s husband looks for the suspects and kills him. Although such a case could be technically be considered as a murder of the first-degree order, Sanders (2008) argues that the jury at the trial stage might decide to let him go scot-free despite being oblivious of the fact that the husband is guilty of such a crime.
Why or why not? What are the limitations of the law when employing these techniques and strategies?
The limitation of applying the Jury nullification strategy is that it eliminates certainty from a criminal justice system while eroding the principle of the “rule of law” that is crucial in any legal system (Sanders, 2008). In other words, this technique introduces arbitrary elements to the trial process, which sometimes can be antithetical to acceptable societal values. Moreover, Sanders (2008) adds that there is the likelihood that when applying this strategy, the jury might be discriminatory when making its decision. In some cases, not all jurors can make informed decisions on specific legislations. Juror’s attempt to come up with such decisions can result in the misapplication of justice even though the intentions for nullification being good.
References
Pezdek, K. (2020). Expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification. Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts, 99-118. doi:10.4324/9781003064404-5
SANDERS, J. (2008). A norms approach to jury “Nullification:” interests, values, and scripts. Law & Policy, 30(1), 12-45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2008.00268.x
Watson, C. (2015). Expert testimony: Legal principles. Psychiatric Expert Testimony: Emerging Applications, 1-13. doi:10.1093/med/9780199346592.003.0001
