CRJ 200 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION
This week we're getting more in to evidence We discussed circumstantial evidence last week and we'll continue a bit here. I'm going to post some thoughts and questions on the other aspects of this week's module as well.
I still think that some of you think that circumstantial evidence is somehow not as good as direct evidence and are skeptical of it. I submit to you that, like the simple examples I gave last week, you rely on circumstantial evidence everyday - sometimes trusting your life to it. Does this put circumstantial evidence into perspective? Let me give you a couple other examples from everyday:
You are driving and about to make a left turn. A car coming towards you in its far left lane has it's signal on indicating it too will make a left turn and thus you make the inference that the driver intends to turn away from you so you proceed. The position of the car and the signal are circumstantial evidence that it will turn left and thus make it safe for you to turn left. You don't know for sure and the other driver didn't call ahead to advise you of his intent but none the less, you just put your life on the line based on circumstantial evidence.
Give me one example of an everyday situation where you rely on circumstantial evidence. Just think of times you are require to act or make a decision based on an inference.
Moving on to evidence, we often hear about criminal cases in court where observers wonder why this or that wasn't mentioned in the case or why the jury wasn't allowed to hear certain things. I have personally had jurors ask, after the trial is over, why they didn't get to hear about whether the defendant had a record.
Why do you think the rules of evidence screen out evidence for relevance and for prejudicial evidence? Is this fair to the defendant? The prosecution? The jurors?
Competence: We have learned certain groups of people may not be presumed to be competent to testify. What if the witness to a robbery is blind? The person cannot perceive in terms of vision but what about the person's hearing? What if the robber has a distinct accent that the blind witness can pick out? What about someone who has had a few beers who witnesses a bar fight? Do you dismiss their testimony completely because they had a few beers?
Taking those examples into consideration, do you think their testimony would be admissible competent evidence? In other words, should it be allowed? Explain your answer.
Finally, the attorney-client privilege is one of the best known privileges. I work with criminal defense attorneys daily and I always wonder, and have asked, what do they do if a defendant admits to them that he/she committed the crime. I wonder how they feel about defending someone they know is guilty. Personally, I couldn't do it and that is one reason I am on the prosecution side.
What do you do if you are defending a client who admits to you that he committed the murder he is charged with? How do you feel about it?
USA 
India