Tutorial Week 4

Question 1

State and explain the roles of the Jury and Assessors in a trial? How are they different from each
other?

Assessors play roles that are comparable to those of juries. The primary duty of jurors and
assessors is to consider the evidence and render a verdict. Hearing all evidence introduced
throughout the trial, including witness testimony and evidence from both sides, is the jury's
and the assessors' principal responsibility. They must also apply the judge's interpretation of
the law. If the assessors cannot agree, the judge has the power to overrule them. To reverse
the jury's verdict, though, an appeals court is needed. However, jurors and assessors are
both regarded as fact finders but they vary from each other in certain ways, one way that
juries and assessors differ from one another is that juries determine the facts and deliver a
verdict, whereas assessors are appointed based on their competence and give expert advice
or counsel to assist the judge.

Question 2:

State some of the responsibilities of the Judge in a trial – (things they are allowed to do
and things they are not allowed to do in relation to the case). Explain your answer with
reference to case authorities.

Judges' duties include evaluating the law and the veracity of evidence used in court. They
are also accountable for making sure that a fair trial is held and that the admissibility of the
evidence submitted in court will determine the case's conclusion. Judges, however, are not
permitted to voice personal opinions that might sway the facts offered in court. Additionally,
throughout trial procedures, judges are prohibited from taking into account newly
discovered evidence that was improperly presented. For example, in the case of Cakau v
State (2022), an appeal was made on the grounds of that the trial judge continuous
interference amounted to an apprehension of bias towards the appellant’s counsel and by
extension towards the appellant which resulted in the conviction being unsafe and caused a
miscarriage of justice. The appeal made was dismissed, as it is not improper for a trial judge
to intervene during cross examination for the purpose of moving the proceedings a long, so
long as it is done in a fair and just manner.

Question 3

The following evidence was found at the crime scene. Discuss if they are relevant evidence
or not. Also discuss if they are circumstantial or direct evidence.

1. Half glass of orange juice on the dining table with Hilary’s lipstick on it.
Relevant evidence that is crucial to proving Hilary was there at the scene. However, it
is Circumstantial evidence because it doesn't name specific suspects in the crime.

2. A knife lying a few feet away from Hilary’s body with some blood on the tip.
Relevant evidence since it might be the murder weapon. Nevertheless, unless
additional examination verifies that it is the real murder weapon, it is regarded as
circumstantial evidence.

3. A plate of apples and bananas on the dining table from which an apple was cut in
half.
Evidence that is relevant since it points to movement or an incident at the scene.
Nevertheless, it can be viewed as circumstantial evidence, because it does not name
specific parties as having committed the crime.

4. A cut on Hilary’s left palm.

That being stated, it is extremely relevant to determine if the wound on her palm
was a result of self-defense or if the attacker intentionally caused the harm. It is
considered circumstantial evidence unless additional investigation establishes a link
with the offender.
5. Some blood near the dining table area not far from Hilary’s body.
Relevant evidence that supports the location of the crime scene. However, because it
does not specifically name anyone as having committed the act, it cannot be
regarded as anything other than circumstantial evidence.

6. A set of footprints leading away from Hilary’s body to the backyard and then out of
the house.
Relevant evidence since it can reveal the whereabouts of the offender. However,
unless additional research links the footprints to a particular person, they are only
thought to be circumstantial evidence.

7. Sam’s blood-soaked shirt.

Evidence that is Relevant and locates Sam at the crime scene. However, until more
investigation proves the blood is Hilary's, it is still only regarded as circumstantial
evidence.

8. Sam’s fingerprint on Hilary’s top. These were in blood.

Considering that it links Sam directly to the victim and the crime scene, it is relevant
evidence. It is therefore highly regarded as direct evidence of Sam's involvement.

9. A set of golf clubs in the passage next to the dining hall.

Evidence that would be relevant if they were used as a weapon, but there is no proof
of a relationship. Therefore, unless additional research connects them to the crime, it
is circumstantial evidence.
10. A blood-soaked towel in the kitchen sink.
Evidence that is relevant because it points to a cleanup effort. It's still not direct
evidence unless more investigation links it to the offender, but it is viewed as
circumstantial evidence.

11. A neighbor had seen a red car stopping in front of Sam’s house a few hours back
while she was doing her laundry. The car had left by the time she finished her
laundry. Her radio was playing music loudly so she had not heard anything.
Relevant evidence since it can imply that someone else was there at the scene of the
crime. Until the vehicle or any of its occupants can be clearly recognized and linked
to the crime, they are considered circumstantial evidence.

12. Janice fingerprints were found in the house on the dining table and kitchen area.
Evidence that is relevant in proving she was present at the scene.
Still only circumstantial evidence, though, unless more investigation links her to the
offense.

13. Drops of chloroform on the dining table.

Relevant evidence since it can point to a bid to render the victim helpless. Therefore,
until additional investigation links it with the offender, it remains circumstantial
evidence.

14. A toast with some peanut butter on it and a bite mark on it. This was on a plate on
the dining table.
Evidence that might be relevant if the bite mark can be connected to a particular
person. Even while the physical evidence is strong, it can only be considered
circumstantial evidence until additional investigation establishes a link between it as
well as the offender.