Important Cases Flashcards
Specifically on the issue of when expert testimony should be admitted into court; the court indicated that for novel scientific evidence to be admissible in court, it must be established that the procedure(s) used to arrive at the testimony is (are) generally accepted in the scientific community. More specifically, the court stated that “while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently estab- lished to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs”
Came to be called the general acceptance test
Frye v. United States (1923)
Frye v. United States (1923)
Specifically on the issue of when expert testimony should be admitted into court; the court indicated that for novel scientific evidence to be admissible in court, it must be established that the procedure(s) used to arrive at the testimony is (are) generally accepted in the scientific community. More specifically, the court stated that “while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently estab- lished to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs”
Came to be called the general acceptance test
R. v. Levogiannis (1993)
The SCC rules that children are allowed to testify in court behind screens that prevent them from seeing the accused.
Wenden v. Trikha (1991)
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench rules that mental health professionals have a duty to warn a third party if they have reasonable grounds to believe that their client intends to seriously harm that individual.
R. v. Mohan (1994)
The SCC establishes formal criteria for determining when expert testimony should be admitted into court.
Challenged the state and appeal courts’ interpretation of “general acceptance.” Led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4 criteria, now referred to as the Duabert Criteria:
- The research has been peer reviewed.
- The research is testable (falsifiable through experimentation)
- The research has a recognized rate of error
- The research adheres to professional standards
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993)
The SCC makes a ruling that, when determining the admissibility of a statement made by a young person to the police, the prosecution does not have to prove that the young person understood his or her legal rights as explained by police, but they do have to prove that these rights were explained to the young person using language appropriate to his or her age and understanding.
R. v. L.T.H. (2008)
R. v. Sophonow (1986)
The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturns the murder conviction of Thomas Sophonow because of errors in law, many of which related to problems with the eyewitness evidence collected by the police as part of their investigation.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench rules that mental health professionals have a duty to warn a third party if they have reasonable grounds to believe that their client intends to seriously harm that individual.
Wenden v. Trikha (1991)
The SCC rules that police interrogation techniques, which consist of various forms of psychological coercion, are acceptable and that confessions extracted through their use can be admissible in court.
R. v. Oickle (2000)
R. v. Oickle (2000)
The SCC rules that police interrogation techniques, which consist of various forms of psychological coercion, are acceptable and that confessions extracted through their use can be admissible in court.
The Ontario Court of Appeal states that jurors are presumed to be impartial (i.e., unbiased) and that numerous safeguards are in place within the Canadian judicial system to ensure this (e.g., limitations can be imposed on the press regarding what they can report before the start of a trial).
R. v. Hubbert (1975)
The SCC rules that prison sentences are being relied on too often by judges as a way of deal ing with criminal behaviour, especially for Aboriginal offenders, and that other sentencing options should be considered.
R. v. Gladue (1999)
R. v. L.T.H. (2008)
The SCC makes a ruling that, when determining the admissibility of a statement made by a young person to the police, the prosecution does not have to prove that the young person understood his or her legal rights as explained by police, but they do have to prove that these rights were explained to the young person using language appropriate to his or her age and understanding.
R. v. Gladue (1999)
he SCC rules that prison sentences are being relied on too often by judges as a way of deal ing with criminal behaviour, especially for Aboriginal offenders, and that other sentencing options should be considered.
