Unit 3 AC2.4- Assess key influences affecting the outcome
of criminal cases
● 45 minutes total, 10 minutes each, pick 4 (or however many question asks for) (10 marks)
● Evidence, media, witnesses, experts, politics, judiciary and barristers & legal teams
● Use a case for each influence
● Make clear and detailed understanding of the impact
Evidence
● Before a charge is brought by the CPS, the case must pass the evidential test to demonstrate there is a
realistic prospect of a successful prosecution
● In England and Wales, the prosecution must provide evidence to prove the claim they are making, this is
known as the burden of proof- the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt or until the jury/magistrates
are sure of the verdict.
● Jurors are more swayed by a confession made by the defendant, even if there is evidence suggesting it
was coerced or when a judge instructs the jury to discount it
● Jurors also tend to place high currency on testimonial evidence, especially eyewitness testimonies, to
be an accurate account of events
○ Testimonial evidence can help to understand the sequence of events, and can also give
supplements and strengths to other evidence available
○ However testimonial evidence can be biassed, corrupt or influenced by other factors resulting in
miscarriages of justice
■ Case study: Ronald Cotton was convicted of raping a woman because she claimed it
was definitely him and spotted him in a line up and some more tests. Although Cotton
did not commit the crime, the jury convicted him due to the high confidence of the
woman who falsely accused him. Her recollection may have been impaired due to the
time of day or the fact that people tend to differentiate people of the same race as them
better than other races. This highlights how evidence can negatively affect the outcome
of a case because the victim’s flawed testimony meant Cotton experienced a
miscarriage of justice as he served 10 years for another's crime.
● Jurors also place a high degree of trust in forensics and DNA evidence as they perceive it as scientific
and infallible
○ Physical evidence provides a tangible object for the jury to see which cannot be distorted by the
defendant, experts can test the evidence and then give their opinion for/against a prosecution in
court
○ However, experts may disagree in court leading the jury being confused or swayed in a
particular direction
■ This may affect the outcome of a trial as it can delay the process, or the jury may be
convinced by one side of the court although they could be incorrect in their opinion.
○ Additionally, evidence can be flawed and subject to contamination
■ Case study: Adam Scott was falsely accused of raping a woman because a technician
failed to discard the petri dish that already had Scott's DNA on when testing for the
woman's attacker. Because the evidence was scientific, the jury was compelled to
believe Scott was the attacker although he had an alibi, phone records showed he was
far from the area and the physical evidence was the only evidence implying he was the
culprit. This shows how evidence can negatively affect the outcome of a case as it can
lead to unsafe trials and wrongful convictions since Scott was charged for the crime.
, Judiciary
● Judges refers to experts in the law and legal procedure, the judges have several key powers and
responsibilities such as clarifying the law for the jury, instructing them how it should be applied, the
rules on evidence admissibility, dismiss a case, order retrials, or direct the jury to bring a particular
verdict in some cases
● The law lays down minimum and maximum sentences for different offences, there are also sentencing
guidelines which help to decide a fair sentence, however judges and magistrates can still give different
sentences depending on circumstance
○ Case study: In the 2011 London Riots, people were looting, stealing and then being prosecuted
for their crimes, however, the sentences were deemed too harsh. For example, magistrates sent
37% of those convicted to jail compared with 12% the year prior for similar cases, the average
sentence was x3 longer than usual. This was because judiciaries aimed to deter people from
participating in the riot and committing more crimes. This higlights how the judicary can affect
the outcome of cases as the sentences they give may be disproportinate and not accurately
reflect the severity of a crime leading to unfair trials and convictions.
● Judicial bias can also negatively affect the outcome of a case as juries can easily be influenced by
judges, this is because the judge is an experienced legal professional who understands the law while
the jury is not, so they may be inclined the trust the judge over evidence if the judge seems to favour
one side of the court
○ Case study: R V Wang- the jury was influenced by the expertise of the judge who persuaded
them to convict Cheong Wang after he was found to be in possession of a sword and knife
although he testified it was for religious reasons. Eventually Wang’s conviction was quashed
after an appeal, but this case still demonstrates how a judge can impact the outcome of a case
by removing the impartiality of the jury.
● Judges themselves may be biassed due to:
○ Class- judges tend to come from higher social classes and therefore may favour higher class
individuals and let them off with crimes
○ Gender- majority of judges are male (only 35% are female) judges may be more critical towards
women as they can be perceived as hysterical and therefore untrustworthy as
victims/witnesses/defendants etc
○ Race- over 90% of judges are white, this means they may be less sympathetic to people of
colour, especially if they are victims/witnesses to racially motivated crimes
■ This can negatively impact the outcome of a trial as it can result in it being deemed
unsafe and unfair- this can lead to miscarriages of justice as offenders may get away
with crimes while their victims will not receive justice.
Legal Teams and Barristers
● Barristers are legally trained professionals who defend people in court; solicitors perform legal work
outside of the courtroom
● All people have the right to free legal representation, however, wealthier defendants have access to
better, more experienced barristers as they charge more for their experience- this impacts the outcome
of cases as it means verdicts are more likely to favour wealthier defendants resulting in unfair trials
○ Case study: OJ Simpson was suspected of the murder of his wife Nicole Brown and her friend
(thought to be affair partner). Simpson’s team included several high profile and reputable
lawyers, Simpson could afford them because he was a well known American footballer. His
team was incredibly skilled in their profession and argued OJ was being targeted by police due
to his race and that they planted fake evidence to frame him. The first trial concluded that he
was not guilty of the crimes although he was implicated by a significant amount of forensic
evidence.
