PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOVEMBER
JANICE M. JOHNSON
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
According to an article that I read, in this case the defense should argue that the photographs and video atomic number 18 not relevant to this case. The defense should argue that both of these pieces of evidence argon meant to paint a bad picture of the m opposite of the dead person churl for the jury.
In another article I read, depending on if the photographs have some bearing on the manner and event of death of the child, then these pieces of evidence would most likely be admissible in court. The article states that if the photographs were offered only to show that the child was dead, then an objection to them could possibly be sustained be possess other evidence such as testimony, or a present of death could also be offered as evidence to canvas that the child is dead, and the photographs would be deemed irrelevant and unfair, and prejudicial to the mother of the decedent child.
The authors of that same article state that the sadomasochistic acts of the mother are of a different nature.
If there is evidence that these acts were done spell the mother was abusive and neglectful toward the child, then this evidence could real well be admissible in court, however, if this evidence is use only to prove that the mother has some supernatural behavior, which has no relevance to the childs death, then the video would not be admissible. Just because a person participates in weird sexual acts certainly doesnt mean that she is not a fit mother, and the admission of this type of evidence may cause a problem.
Reference
http://www.enotes.com/law/q-and-a/how-would-defense-argue-exclude-such-evidence-what-264972If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment