1/60
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Charter s.8
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
Charter s.24
If search is unreasonable, court will consider all factors and might exclude evidence
Where do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Personal - the body (strip searches, pat downs, DNA)
Informational (data, phones, computers)
Territorial (places, things)
What is a search?
Police actions are a search where they intrude on your “reasonable expectatoin of privacy”
Searches are assumed unreasonable (T/F)
True
Requirements for a reasonable search
Warrant
Consent
Hot Pursuit
Warrant
Police’s legal authorization to search
Police must swear and prove that there are “reasonable and probable grounds” before a judge
Warrant is for specific time and date
Warrant must be with police
Knock and announce
Force is allowed if denied entry
Consent
Can be express or implied
Have authority to give consent
Must be voluntary
Should understand what you are consenting to
Hot Pursuit
Emergency situation
Danger of evidence being destroyed, or suspect getting away
No warrant needed
Charter s.9
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or impristoned.
Detention
When you are stopped by police for questioning
Detention should be brief, if not leading to arrest you are free to go
Charter s.10
Always having the right to know the reason of your arrest, allowed to get a lawyer immediately, and duty counsel if needed
Duty Counsel
Lawyers paid for by legal aid for people with low incomes
Bail Hearing
A hearing where judge decides if accused can be released before trial
judge must release unless Crown shows detention is justified
For an indictable offence - must have hearing within 24 hrs
Bail
Money pledged to court to secure appearance at later date.
If the accused breaches bail conditions, they or a surety (family member, friend) will have to pay the money
Reverse Onus
For murder charges, the accused is prescriptively kept in custody unless they can prove they should be released/aren’t not a risk
Factors to consider in bail hearings:
1. the chance the accused person will not attend court dates
2. whether they are likely to commit crimes if released or are dangerous to the public
3. in some cases, whether release on bail would cause people to lose faith in the administration of justice
Undertaking
Accused required to sign undertaking and agree to conditions; eg curfew, not going certain places, report to police station once a week
Recognizance
recognize charged with offence, and promise to appear on certain date
Habeas Corpus
“you shall have the body”
if you are being held and don’t know reason, can ask for a hearing to determine legality of detention
Disclosure
Duty of crown to provide all evidence to the Defense pre-trial so the accused can fully understand the case and defend themselves
Evidence
Include anything that will submitted as exhibits at trial:
charging documents
physical evidence
lists of witnesses
witness statements
audio or video statements
expert witness reports
documents
search warrants
wiretap evidence
police misconduct materials
photos
videos
forensic evidence - blood type, other body fluids, DNA
Forensic Science
the application of scientific methods to criminal cases
Adjournment
a request to delay trial proceedings- a part may request for more time
The plea (arraignment)
reading of the charge, and hearing where accused pleads guilty/not guilty
Preliminary Hearing
a hearing where judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to the actual trial
Resolution Discussions/Plea Bargaining
When accused may plead guilty to lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence
If the case is weak defence may opt to have this
Similar to settlement discussions in civil law
Often seen as compromising justice
Adversarial System
Idea that when two opposing sides are represented by counsel and argue a case, the truth will be discovered
Judge
Appointed by federal government (except for provincial court judges, who are appointed by provincial government)
Need to have practiced as a lawyer for a minimum 10 years
Crown prosecutor
Lawyer representing the government
Burden of proof is on the Crown. Accused is innocent until proven guilty
Must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (99%)
Must present all evidence, even if it weakens the case.
They also make a decision whether to prosecute - if the case is weak, they will not prosecute or withdraw charges.
They act in the public interest - ie their goal is not to have a maximum number of convictions, but rather, to get a just result.
Defense counsel
Represents the accused.
Duty to represent client to best of your ability, even where the crime is offensive to the public.
Your job is to establish “reasonable doubt”.
You have to defend to best of ability
Motions
a step in a proceeding
Procedural motion
deadlines, timelines, etc
Evidentiary motion
determine admissibility of evidence
Trial by judge alone or by jury
Accused may select trial by jury or judge alone
Note: This is only for Superior/Supreme Court (higher level of court of first instance - ie for indictable crimes. If a summary conviction crime - you are in provincial court, and it is always trial by judge alone)
Jury Selection - Empanelling
The process of selecting 12 jurors.
People with personal interest in case, or who would suffer personal hardship, are exempt
empanelling challenges- for cause
specific reason given for dismissing a potential juror
empanelling challenges- peremptory
No reason given for dismissing a potential juror
Jury Duty
Jurors are then sworn in - sit in jury box.
Jurors are informed of their duties.
They can’t discuss the case with anyone, or look at media (no phones)
Sequestering
Isolating the jury
Most jurors go home at the end of the day. Sometimes, though, the judge may sequester the jury. (Stay in a hotel)
All juries are sequestered when they retire to reach a verdict
Verdict
the decision in the case, must be unanimous (all 12 jurors)
Foreperson
designated “leader” of jury
(announces verdict)
Opening statements
Summary of the case
story told in the most compelling way for their side
Subpoena - witnesses
court document that orders witnesses to appear
Contempt - witnesses
disobeying an order to appear, or any other court order, is an offence and can land you in jail
Perjury - witnesses
knowingly giving false evidence with intent to mislead. A Criminal offence - maximum penalty 14 years
Examination in chief/Direct Examination
If your side calls the witness, you conduct direct examination
You can only ask non-leading questions
Rationale: Allow the witness to tell their story.
Cross examination
The other party can cross-examine.
They ask leading questions, in order to challenge weaknesses or holes in the testimony. These questions can be answered by yes/no.
Rules of evidence - privileged communication
Can’t be evidence in court - communication between spouses, between lawyer and client, between patient and doctor, pastor and parishioner.
Rationale: we want to encourage open communication in these situation without fear of it becoming evidence
Rules of evidence - similar fact
Evidence of past bad behaviour presumptively not admissible. We are only looking at the facts of this case.
Rules of evidence - hearsay
you can only testify as to what YOU saw.
Rules of evidence - opinion
witnesses only testify as to what they see. Not their opinion on a situation.
Rules of evidence - character
The Crown may not introduce evidence of bad character.
Rules of evidence - confession
must be voluntary. If there is anything suggesting it is not, then not admissible.
Rules of evidence - relevance
#1 rule of evidence is that it must be relevant
Rules of evidence - entering evidence
Evidence can be introduced through witness testimony, or it will be entered as an “exhibit”
Rules of evidence- expert opinion
If you need an expert opinion on something (forensics, etc) you have to call an expert and have them qualified as an expert.
Voir Dire
“to speak the truth”
to determine the admissibility of evidence, if an expert witness has the right credentials, or other evidentiary matters (like a trial within a trial)
Summation/Closing Statement
Similar to opening argument, and you want to hit the highlights of the evidence in your favour.
Charge to Jury
judge delivers charge to the jury
Instructions to the jury as to the legal tests that they should be considering, and instructions on evidence that they need to consider. Either side can challenge this for legal errors, and if you don’t like the verdict, you can appeal on the basis that there was a flaw in the charge to the jury
Hung Jury
When the jury can’t come to a unanimous decision. The accused may then be tried by a new jury, so the trial repeats