Unit 3 Controlled Assessment Notes- from crime scene to courtroom. Has all assessment criteria with cases and evaluation (very detailed and predicted an A, over 60+ hours of work). Created using textbooks, class notes and the 2021 specification.
AC 3.2 (1.20)
Just verdicts
● fair+impartial actions/judgements (consistent with law)
● In courtroom, just verdicts result of E presented by P+D (does justice according to
facts in case)
● Criminal justice system not always produced verdicts that just
double jeopardy rule:
○ Law until 2003- someone acquitted crime couldn't be prosecuted for same offense
again
○ Fair law at time- person couldn’t be harassed (found not guilty- they not guilty)
○ Problems arised- cases evident ‘not guilty’ unjust
○ E.G. D later confesses crime/new E found (Billy Dunlop+murder Julie Hogg)
● Unjust verdict- something unfair/not morally right
● Thousands cases per yr-vast majority decided correctly with E available at time
● occasions takes years for D to be brought to justice
Case study 1
Stephen Lawrence:
○ Murdered by white gang
○ 18 yrs-gain successful conviction against 2 suspects (errors by police throughout-
ingrained racism)
○ Initial officer lack urgency+often inactive on case (since reviewed- 28 police failings)
○ Dwayne Brookes- treated like suspect (racial profiled)- should’ve been eyewitness
○ HOLMES computer system inadequate+lack trained officers who could use system
(loss of info)
○ Info on weapons under suspects floorboard not given to search team (E lost)
○ covert video shot in suspects flat- 4 suspects racist+violent with knife to SL public
inquiry
○ DNA fibres linked suspect to crime- convicted
○ Courts come to just verdict against 2 convicted
○ Original investigation- 5 suspects highlighted being involved
○ time went on it-impossible to convict all
○ 3 suspects should not be free (police received 22 firm leads about suspects being 5
white men- no P followed)
○ Argue unjust (how long took for conviction+errors by police)
○ Unjust verdict- until all of suspects arrested, justice isn’t served (potentially enough
E)
Case study 2
Philando Castile:
○ racial profiled
○ Pulled over in car- resembled suspect in armed robbery
○ Shot by officer infront child+gf who videoed
○ Officer received light sentence- no reason to shoot
○ jury decided couldn't see what happened in car- clear video E PC telling officer what
he was doing (trust D's Work)
, ○ officer charged second degree murder (manslughter in the UK) -unjust verdict as E
shows attack unjustified
○ jury too lenient as D was in position of power
Case study 3
OJ Simpson:
○ widely publicised events in american history
○ status +power led to unjust verdict
○ "Dream Team"-team of trial lawyers represented O.J. (rich afford best)
○ Accused killing former wife Nicole Brown Simpson + friend
○ relationship with ex-wife known to be abusive
○ D put police on trial- suggested racist, corrupt police investigation
○ cast doubt on E- found not guilty
○ lack of E-clear to see impact his position had on verdic
○ legal system didn’t want to seem racist through guilty verdict (overlooked vital E-
pushed unjust verdict)
Conclusion
● unjust verdicts occur more frequently than believe (can be from biased opinions)
● Correcting verdicts long process-requires original verdict found miscarriage of justice
● procedures/effort put into ensuring wrongful convictions don't occur
● legal system not perfect-still occur
Miscarriages of justice
● Conviction+subsequent punishment of person for crime didn't commit+failure attain
justice-
● Numerous cases- usually found innocent new E e.g. DNA/technology (advancing)
● innocence project- charity based project (overturn all wrongful convictions-USA)
● IP- wrongful convictions 6 factors:
● Jailhouse informants
● Inadequate D
● Miss applied forensic
● Access post-conviction DNA testing
● False confessions (forced confessions/protecting other)
● Eyewitness misidentification (cases:sole prosecution E+too relied on in court)
● 75% wrongful convictions- eyewitness testimony
● IP- new DNA E technology- overturned 329 wrongful convictions since 1989
Case study 1
Guildford four
○ miscarriage of justice-4 innocent sentenced life imprisonment (large pressure
police/need to find O- corruption)
○ direct involvement with IRA attack pub bombings 1974
○ intense interrogation by police-arrested
○ statements later retracted- still basis of case against them
○ Alleged statements result police coercion (from intimidation (threats against fam)/
torture)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller TeeBott04. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
