Chapter 8: Trial Procedures Flashcards
adversarial system
an approach based on two opposing sides, in which each side presents its case in court
testimony
a declaration (ex. by a witness) under oath; a sworn statement
court clerk
person who keeps records, files, and processes docs for court
court recorder
person whose job it is to document/record all spoken evidence, comments, questions in the court proceedings
stay of proceedings
court order to stop the trial proceedings until a certain condition is met
immune
exempt, completely protected
empanelling
the selection of a jury
challenge for cause
formal objection to a prospective juror for reasons such as the juror’s knowledge of the case or lack of impartiality
peremptory challenge
formal objection to a potential juror for which no specific reason is given
sequester
keep jury together and away from non-jurors until it reaches a verdict
verdict
final, formal decision of a trial
arraignment
1st stage in criminal trial, court clerk reads charge to the accused and a plea is entered
direct evidence
information (evidence) given by person who witnessed the event in question (ex. testimony by bystander who say assault take place)
circumstantial evidence
information (evidence) that relates only indirectly to the alleged offence
examination-in-chief
the first questioning of a witness during court proceedings
leading question
questions prompt witness to give answers wanted
directed verdict
judge’s direction to the jury, after Crown presents its evidence, to find the accused person not guilty b/c the Crown has not proven its case
surrebuttal
evidence presented in court to counteract or disprove evidence in the other party’s rebuttal
subpoena
court doc ordering a person to appear in court for a specific purpose (ex. as a witness)
contempt of court
act that is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct court in its administration of justice, or lessen its dignity
affirmation
witness’s solemn agreement to tell the truth
oath
solemn promise or statement that something is true
perjury
act of knowingly giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding with intent to mislead
adverse witness
person who is contrary or hostile giving testimony under oath in a court
voir dire
trial within a trial to decide if certain evidence is admissible
self-incrimination
act of implicating oneself in a crime; behaviour indicating one’s guilt
privileged communications
confidential communications that one can’t be required to present in court as evidence (ex. doctor, patient; priest, confessor)
minors
people under age of majority (ex. 18)
dominant party
party in a position of power over another (ex. doctor and patient)
similar fact evidence
info (evidence) that shows that the accused has previously committed a similar offence
hearsay evidence
info (evidence) not coming from direct, personal experience or knowledge of witness
opinion evidence
based on thoughts of the witness, usually an expert in his or her field (ex. coroner commenting on cause of death)
inculpatory
admitting to sth, incriminating; as in inculpatory statement
exculpatory
denying sth, clearing of guilt
confession
statement by the accused in which he or she admits to the crime or acknowledges that some or all of the charge laid is true
summation
for each side in a trial, the formal conclusion, which recapitulates (sums up) key arguments and evidence
charge to the jury
after the summations in a trial, a judge’s instructions to the jury (ex. review of the facts, points of law)
hung jury
jury that cannot come to a unanimous decision in a criminal case
credibility
the fact or quality of being believable or reliable
legal duty
allow certain people to commit acts that would otherwise be offences
(ex. police officer drives over speed limit while chasing suspect)
necessity
person commits criminal acts to prevent a greater harm
ex. break into house to stop fire from killing infant
automatism
State of a person who is unconscious of what they are doing while capable of action, involuntary behaviour.
May be caused by psychological stress.
(ex. sleepwalking, convulsions)
NCRMD
not criminally responsible due to mental disorder
alibi
places the accused somewhere else at the time the offence occurred
self-defence
protect yourself, property, people under your protection using force that is reasonable and necessary
consent
Defence only permitted if accused could and did consent to the action before injury inflicted.
Never used in cases involving firearms, murder, sexual crimes, against people under 14.
entrapment
police action/abuse that encourages/aids a person to commit an offence
*not recognized as offence, but as abuse by police
provocation
Words/actions that are insulting enough to cause an ordinary person lose self-control.
Must prove:
- wrongful actions/words were used
- words/actions enough to make other person lose control
- person responded suddenly
- person reacted before there was time to cool down
duress
threat or use of violence to force a person to do something against their will, illegal coercion
*used as a defence if it was an urgent situation of clear/imminent peril when following the law is demonstrably impossible
double jeopardy
being tried twice for the same offence after being acquitted or to get a higher sentence (it is prohibited)
*new + compelling evidence needed to be retried
mental fitness to stand trial
review board determines if accused is fit to stand trial, may be remanded up to 60 days to re-evaluate fitness to stand trial, can get treatment, inquiry held every 2 yrs until accused is tried
*may or may not be mentally fit at time of the offence too which could result in lack of mental fitness to stand trial
mental fitness at time of the offence
- “disease of mind” when the offence occurred
- there is presumption of sanity so insanity must be proven by Crown (incl actus reus and mens rea) before introducing evidence of mental disorder
- if not guilty, court holds hearing regarding what to do or review board decides
intoxication
cannot form intent b/c under influence of alcohol/drugs
needs actus reus and mens rea to be proven
(ex. kills someone while drunk so manslaughter instead of first degree murder b/c general intent instead of specific intent)
honest mistake
- offender truthfully didn’t know they were committing a crime
- onus on Crown to prove crime proven intentionally
- accused’s credibility largely determines if defence succeeds
(ex. found in possession of unpaid items while planning to leave establishment)
mistake of fact
- committing criminal act w/o knowing all facts that would make the act criminal
- 2 conditions: genuine mistake not result of accused neglecting to find out facts, law accepts ignorance of the facts as a defence
(ex. buy sth and get counterfeit money w/o knowing, use the bill again and get arrested)
