AC 2.4 Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal cases
There are a range of different factors that could influence the outcome of a criminal case.
Some of the key influences that I will be assessing will be: evidence, witnesses, experts,
barristers, judiciary, political factors and the media.
Evidence
For a case to be successful in court, it is important that evidence is presented, which can be
a huge influence on the outcome of a criminal case. Physical and testimonial evidence will
need to be considered by the jury or magistrates in order to come to a verdict. Furthermore,
witness testimony and expert testimony is vital in playing a role at adding more context to
evidence. The CPS will test a case before it goes to court to ensure that the case could
provide a verdict if it went to court. In order to do this, police must present all of the evidence
that will be provided for the case. When a case has been passed through the CPS
successfully and has gone to court, then the prosecution and defence will present their
evidence and then argue their case. Cross examination can be done by the defence to
challenge the prosecution on their evidence and witnesses. The prosecution must be
convinced that the defence is guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ on all charges by the end of
the trial, which will be used to convince the jury or magistrates. If the prosecution cannot
prove the defence is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then the defendant must be acquitted.
An example of where evidence has played an important role in the outcome of a criminal
case is the case of Barry George. Barry George was accused of murdering Jill Dando. One
piece of evidence that was used for the case was the fact that George had a tiny spec of
gunpowder residue in his pocket. This was later found as unreliable as this gunpowder
residue was not enough evidence to prove that George had shot Jill Dando.
Witnesses
Witnesses are able to talk on behalf of the prosecution and defence, and are able to retell
and state their recollection of an event. Witnesses usually give their testimony while in court,
and the Witness Character highlights 2 important expectations when witnesses give their
evidence. One point that is highlighted is that a witness is able to give their testimony in the
form of a written statement if agreed to by both parties. A second point that is highlighted is
that witnesses who may be classed as vulnerable or intimidated (e.g by being a young age,
having a mental condition, etc) are able to give their testimony via video call, pre-recorded
testimony, or from behind a protective screen in the courtroom.
Both the prosecution and defence is able to call up a witness, and this witness can then be
cross-examined by the other side on the evidence they have given, which involves
questioning them in the witness box. It may be seen in some cases, such as the case of
Damilola Taylor, that the witness has lied while in court. In this case, the eye witness had
been a 14 year old girl, who had lied while in court about her testimony. The CPS were
highly criticised for not checking and cross examining her testimony before the case went to
court. Witnesses not telling the truth under oath could cause misinformation to be spread in
the courtroom, and could affect the outcome of the trial.
Furthermore, a danger of witnesses is that there could be biases or stereotyping made from
some witnesses. This could be racial or gender stereotypes, and this could cause jury’s to
, have different opinions based on the eyewitness testimony. For example, Leaufman’s study
found that jurors were more likely to feel sympathy for rape vicitms based on their
testimonies and how emotional their testimony’s were, and their decisions were less likely to
be based on the evidence. Additionally, the innocence project has found that over 70% of
352 convictions have been wrongful due to eyewitness misidentification, and these cases
have been later overturned due to findings in DNA evidence.
Experts
Another form of witnesses are expert witnesses. Expert witnesses have specialist knowledge
in a certain area, and are able to give both facts and opinions in court. Expert witnesses can
be very vital for complex cases as they can provide helpful evidence which may help
determine the outcome of a case. The jury is not likely to have advanced specialist
knowledge like an expert, so jurors may have to rely on the testimony of an expert for certain
things. However, a disadvantage is that some jurors may be too dependent on an expert
witness, and the expert witness could have wrong statistics, wrong knowledge, etc. In the
case of Sally Clark, Roy Meadows was an expert paediatrician, and had wrongly accused
Sally Clark of murdering her two infant children, giving false statistics and providing his
opinion that ended up swaying the jury to convict Clark. Additionally, the prosecution and
defence can ask to use the same expert witness, which could be confusing for a jury, as it
may be difficult to point out who’s side the expert witness is in favour for.
Barristers
Barristers are qualified lawyers who work in high level courts such as cron courts. They work
on behalf of their client, either the prosecution or defence, and speak on their behalf. They
wear a wig and gown in court to keep tradition. Before going to court, a solicitor will brief a
barrister on the information and evidence for the case. Barristers will work inside of the court,
and the solicitors will mainly work outside of the court.
There are some factors that can affect the quality of the barrister who may be used in a
criminal case. Barristers who are expensive will often be on higher profile cases.
Furthermore, they may have a higher expertise and a lot of experience with different cases.
In general, barristers are expensive, so those who are rich will be able to afford those high
costs. Barristers and legal teams are able to carry out plea bargaining. Plea bargaining
involves negotiating for a lower sentence or charge if the defendant pleads guilty. This may
be used in cases to secure a guilty verdict, which could ultimately influence the outcome of a
case because the prosecution may have a greater chance at winning the case. The danger
of plea bargaining is that defendants may be forced into falsely admitting guilt, and could
have harsh consequences if the prosecution wins the case.
There has been a case in which a juror ‘fell’ for a barrister which led to the verdict of a case
being tainted. Christopher Alder had been unlawfully killed while in police custody. In 2001,
the police applied for a review of the case as they had suspected juror infatuation had
tainted the verdict. This application for a re-trial was however rejected.
Judiciary
The judiciary, also known as the judge, plays an important role in the outcome of a criminal
case. The judge will have the expertise and knowledge to be able to manage the courtroom,
and almost acts as a ladder in the courtroom, ensuring that each side is civil and that the jury
