Class Notes (811,179)
Canada (494,542)
Sociology (2,904)
SOC 3730 (78)
Lecture 6

SOC 3730 - Week 6

10 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Guelph
SOC 3730
Michelle Dumas

SOC 3730 – Courts and Society  03/11/2014 Trials and Evidence February 27, 2014 Right to Speedy Trial Delays Delay in hearing criminal cases Other cases tend to go through the system a lot quicker Causes Variety of legal options Could be trying to plea bargain Requires approval from judge No judge to oversee Evidentiary issues Charter Rights: Sec 11(b) Tried in reasonable time R v.Askov (1990) Charges stayed Unreasonable amount of time to go before the courts in trial Social science evidence Looked at places with longer delays which typically lead to convictions Problems Legally accused of committing a crime, tarnish on name Take a lot of time off work or lose job Witnesses could forget or disappear SCC 4 Factors 1) The length of delay Time 6-8 months Reasons Complexity of case 2) Explanation for the delay Crown and institutional Crown goes under microscope to ensure they’re doing their job properly Institutional reasons could be not able to get a judge, courtroom *Defendant cannot cause delay, if they are found to delay court the burden of proof lies on the accused 3) Waiver Freely given Freely waive the right to a speedy trial Not voluntary is seen as a problem 4) Prejudice to the accused Damage What type of damage has occurred because of the delay Impact 100,000 criminal charges were permanently stayed because they had spent too much time in the system Return (SCC): time R v. Morin (1992) Argued that undue delay of 14-15 months for impaired driving did not violate section 11(b) Most court cases are tried within one year, first appearance within 5-10 months The Criminal Trial Formal Supposed to remain a strictly formal affair Serious outcomes Rules Rules are extremely strict of evidence, procedure and criminal law Formality and Rigidity Questions Prejudicial Cannot act in a way that’s prejudicial Trickery Not allowed to use trickery to win cases Lack Surprise Crown attorney provides full disclosure to defence No surprise in proceedings, evidence, or questioning Complex cases The more complex the case the more the rules will be upheld Judge’s role To make sure the rules are being followed Key actors Prosecutor, judge, crown Criminal Trial – Evidence Prosecutor Police Has to make sure that their case is as complete as possible to ensure no doubt Primary evidence is coming from police officers Witnesses and victims Need to cooperate Provide more evidence than what the police are presenting Physical Can provide physical evidence; anything that can be used to cooperate that this persona is guilty Experts Doctors, anthropologists, psychologists Anyone who can provide expert opinion Criminal Trial – Evidence Defence Evidence Don’t have to provide any evidence Ensure the constitutional rights of their client are upheld through trial Innocent narrative Using the same evidence to show how it is wrong/provided in the wrong context and to show how their client is not guilty Criminal Trial – Evidence (Special) Fair Trial Want to make it as fair as possible Legally obtained Hearsay evidence Any second hand information Accepte
More Less

Related notes for SOC 3730

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.