Jury Trial MCQs Flashcards
The prosecution has decided to offer no evidence against a defendant following the judge’s ruling made on a voir dire. The jury have been empanelled and sworn, but the voir dire was held in their absence. The most appropriate course for the Crown to take is:
[A] Explain the position to the judge at the conclusion of the voir dire and formally state in open court that the Crown offers no evidence against the defendant. The usual practice is for the judge to return a verdict of not guilty.
[B] Explain the position to the judge at the conclusion of the voir dire and formally state in open court that the Crown offers no evidence against the defendant. The court will then order that the count is left to lie on the file marked not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Crown Court.
[C] Explain the position to the judge at the conclusion of the voir dire and formally state in open court that the Crown offers no evidence against the defendant. The court will then order that the count is left to lie on the file marked not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
[D] Explain the position to the judge at the conclusion of the voir dire and formally state in open court that the Crown offers no evidence against the defendant. The usual practice is for the jury to be directed by the judge to return a not guilty verdict.
[D] Explain the position to the judge at the conclusion of the voir dire and formally state in open court that the Crown offers no evidence against the defendant. The usual practice is for the jury to be directed by the judge to return a not guilty verdict.
You prosecute the case of Geoffrey Catchpole. He is charged with handling a stolen oil painting. The defence maintain that Catchpole innocently acquired the painting from a car boot sale. They do not dispute that the painting is the property of one Cyril Pumpion whose house was burgled six months prior to Catchpole’s arrest. Defence counsel has informed you that Mr Pumpion’s evidence is accepted. How might you prove that the oil painting is stolen property?
section 9 witness statement or adduce agreed evidence under s10 admission
During the trial on indictment of Samuel Allen, the jury hear inadmissible evidence from a prosecution witness that Allen has served “a long time for Robbery in the past”. Defence counsel applies for the jury to be discharged. Which of the following is most accurate?
[A] The judge may discharge the entire jury. If the jury is discharged, Allen is not acquitted and may be tried on the same indictment before a fresh jury.
[B] The judge may discharge the entire jury. If the jury is discharged, Allen is entitled to a not guilty verdict and may not be re-tried.
[C] The judge must discharge the entire jury. Allen is entitled to a not guilty verdict and may not be re-tried.
[D] The judge must discharge the entire jury. Allen is not acquitted and may be tried on the same indictment before a fresh jury.
[A] The judge may discharge the entire jury. If the jury is discharged, Allen is not acquitted and may be tried on the same indictment before a fresh jury.
You represent Charlie Birch who is charged with possessing cannabis with intent to supply. The defendant tells you that he does not wish to give evidence in his defence. Which of the following is most accurate?
[A] He must give evidence and could be compelled by the court so to do.
[B] He is entitled to decline to give evidence and the jury may not draw any inferences from the fact.
[C] He is entitled to decline to give evidence however the jury may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the fact. Counsel should advise him of the situation and endorse the brief thereby recording the defendant’s decision.
[D] He is entitled to decline to give evidence however the jury may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the fact. Counsel should advise him of the situation and endorse the brief thereby recording the decision. No other defence witnesses may be called on his behalf.
[C] He is entitled to decline to give evidence however the jury may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the fact. Counsel should advise him of the situation and endorse the brief thereby recording the defendant’s decision.
The court or jury in determining whether the defendant is guilty may draw adverse inferences at the defendant’s trial in which of the following situations:
(i) Where the defendant relies upon a fact in his defence that he failed to mention in police interview being one that he could reasonably have been expected to mention.
(ii) Where the defendant fails to account in his police interview for any object found in his possession that may be attributable to the defendant’s commission of the offence.
(iii) Where the defendant fails to account in his police interview for any mark found on his clothing that may be attributable to the defendant’s commission of the offence.
(iv) Where the defendant fails to account in his police interview for his presence at a place at or about the time the offence was committed where his presence may be attributable to the defendant’s participation in the offence.
[A] Only (i) above is correct
[B] Only (i) and (iv) above are correct
[C] Only (i), (ii) and (iii) above are correct
[D] All the above are correct
[D] All the above are correct.
A defendant, Marcus Smith, has been arrested for an offence of grievous bodily harm upon a family member. The police take the view that it is appropriate to delay access to legal advice and, on this basis, conduct an interview with him at a police station in the absence of a solicitor. Smith remains silent throughout. The police do in fact have a proper basis for the delay in access to legal advice, and on this basis the conduct of the interview without legal advice is justified.
The matter has come to trial and the court is concerned with the potential to draw adverse inferences under s.34 CJPO 1994 from failure to answer any questions in the interview, in light of the fact that in the trial he has now advanced a clear and detailed defence of self-defence.
Which of the following is the most accurate comment on the correct approach to take in this situation?
[A] Given the lack of any access to legal advice it would not be lawful for an adverse inference to be made under section 34.
[B] Despite the lack of any access to legal advice, but because of the properly justifiable basis that the police had for the denial of that access, it would nonetheless be lawful for an adverse inference to be made under section 34.
[C] Given the lack of access to legal advice it may in some circumstances not be lawful for an adverse inference to be made under section 34, but that is a matter of discretion for the trial judge, having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
[D] Despite the lack of any access to legal advice, but because of the properly justifiable basis that the police had for the denial of that access, it may in some circumstances nonetheless be lawful for an adverse inference to made under section 34. That is a matter of discretion for the trial judge, having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
[D] Despite the lack of any access to legal advice, but because of the properly justifiable basis that the police had for the denial of that access, it may in some circumstances nonetheless be lawful for an adverse inference to made under section 34. That is a matter of discretion for the trial judge, having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
Consider the following Indictment:
Regina -v- Clare Smith, Barry Neville, Chris Maguire and Charles Roach
What is the correct order of the closing speeches in the trial?
[A] Smith, Neville, Maguire, Roach, Prosecution.
[B] Prosecution, Smith, Neville, Maguire, Roach.
[C] Prosecution, Roach, Maguire, Neville, Smith.
[D] Either [B] or [C].
[B] Prosecution, Smith, Neville, Maguire, Roach.
