Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
U of G (8,000)
SOC (600)

SOC 3730 Study Guide - Tim Hortons, Due Process, Ahold


Department
Sociology
Course Code
SOC 3730
Professor
Michelle Dumas

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
March 07, 2013 Continued from last week’s lecture AND films for paper
Alibis proof (support)
- Olsen and Wells
- Purpose
- Types of Proof
o Physical
o Person
- Social psychological
o Who gives the alibi (an ex-convict won’t have the same ability as a
non-convict)
Alibis believability
1) physical evidence
a. none
b. easy to fabricate (I was at home watching this TV show at this time
could be recorded, etc.)
c. difficult to fabricate (video surveillance with date and time stance to
say that you were somewhere else)
2) Person evidence
a. Stranger issues of risk of misidentification no motive to lie if hey
say they saw you, they probably did. Issue? Did they see you, or
someone that looks like you?
b. Similar relation they know you but may have motive to lie
c. Familiar acquaintances familiar with you but have no motive to lie
teller at the bank you see at every Friday the Tim Horton’s
Results
- physical evidence
o difficult to fabricate overwhelmingly supported over all-person
evidence makes it essentially believable that you have an honest
alibi that you did or did not commit the crime
o easy to fabricate trumped person evidence as an alibi cash receipt
from a pizza delivery for example
- person evidence
o strangers were seen as being more credible in some circumstances
even with the possibility of misidentification
- believability
o related to presumption of guilt of person if they believed the person
really was guilty then they were less likely to believe the evidence (??)
- totality of evidence
o overall physical evidence was seen as better then person evidence
Closing Argument
- section 651 (CC)
o who says closing arguments first
- defence
o evidence defence first, pros last

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

March 07, 2013 Continued from last week’s lecture AND films for paper
o no evidence pros goes first and defence goes last
- closing
o offer reasonable inferences about evidence is congruent with their
narrative (i.e. crown this person is guilty, defense this person is
innocent)
- disallowed
o not allowed to comment on evidence that was not used in trial
o cannot make reference to defendants prior criminal history or
convictions (can only bring it upon after they have been convicted and
now they are going for sentencing)
Charge to jury
- judge instructs jury
o elements of offence
o evidence required
o degree of proof
- relevant laws and evidence
- reasonable doubt
Instruct juries on procedures
1. definition of crime
2. presumption of innocence
3. burden of proof
4. reasonable doubt
Film Number 1: “Close to Home”
From the crown attorney:
- girl in drive thru using ATM can’t reach, get’s out to use the ATM – guy
comes around with gun held at gun point kids in the car still
o white female, brown hair
o man with gun: white male, brown hair, brown eyes Calvin Riggs
- cops chase, accused ditches car, gets out and guns
o police officer uses site of him
o finds him in a nearby video acarcade identified by the women victim
while she’s in back of cop car with child
- they call him C-Mac on the street
o he’s a violent predator
o robbery victim 72 years old pistol shot the man in the skull
- that’s two strikes – one more, and he will be put away for life
- trials in two days
- defence lawyer Doug Halliver (?)
- they all work as a team, whatever it takes they want Calvin Riggs gone
- no video cameras in arcade
- cameras in ATM area, can’t tell it’s him
- no prints in the car either
- victim testifys in court
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version