Justicefor all advocates,
REF:BRIEFING OF THE TRIAL TO BE HELD ON 15THJUNE 2014
Asthe legal representative, it is of great importance to give a briefdescription of the trial process to take place on the stated date.The basic things that this document will analyze are the trialprocedure as well as how the conduct requirements when the trial isin progress. It will also offer some advice on giving of evidence asa defendant as well as responding to the claimant’s evidence. It isof essential to understand that evidence is the key determinant ofwhether the trial will get won or lost. The typical trial procedurestarts with jury’s selection. The jurors get selected for the trialfrom a pool of the available jurors. 1
Theattorneys and judge will question the prospective jurors to find outwhether a juror possesses a personal interest in the trial. Thepersonal interest may be on the basis of biasness or prejudice thatmay influence trial’s course of actions. Undesirable jurors may getchallenged by the attorneys and get asked whether to get him excusedfrom the trial. The second course of action that will take place isissuing of opening statements. Each side will begin the trial bydemarcating the evidence that they will give to the judges during theentire course of the trial. The opening statements only outline theexpectations of what each side is hoping to prove in the entire, butthey are not part of the evidence.
Thethird step is the giving of evidence and testimonies by thewitnesses. It is the prosecution`s duty to begin the trial with thepresentation of their case. On the case that a witness gets called,the side that involved the witness examines the witness first. Theother side later gets a chance to ask questions in cross-examiningmanner. In the case where physical evidence is available weapons,documents, photographs are allocated numbers for identification andlater presented in the trial2.
Inthe trial period, the attorney presents an objection to the judge ona question that may be asked to the witness. The questions that theattorney may reject include those of technicality and questions thatcan get argued outside trial.3The judge will then inform the jury the presence of any data that maybe of importance before they make their decision.4The judge also gives advice to the jury on any information to getdisregarded that may be not of importance when making the decision.The judge will apply the law that is relevant to the legality of thequestion before he or she makes a ruling on whether to overrule orsustain the objection. Each side “rest” the case when all theevidence they have concerning the trial gets presented.
Inthe rule of law, there is governance to the evidence that can getadmitted in a legal proceeding. Part of the evidence that is notcontroversy is referred to as the facts in the case. On the case ofthe evidence given, it is to support3the assertion of the plaintiff. The evidence may be either weak orstrong. Strong evidence is the one that indicates direct proof of thepositivity of the assertion. It is of importance for the plaintiffto understand the strong evidence against him if ruling is to getmade in his or her favor.5The plaintiff should then compose and give out the evidence todisapprove the strong evidence alleged against him or her.6
Theplaintiff should also be keen to identify any contradictingstatements in the evidence presented against him or her. Theexistence of contradicting statement renders the evidence unreliableand seems untrue. It can, therefore, cause the nullification of theevidence. With the nullification of the evidence, the plaintiff has achance of winning the case. Weak evidence does not have muchinfluence of the ruling of the case, however, it still getsconsidered as evidence against the plaintiff.7On the case of the weak evidence that may get presented, it is alsoof importance to counteract the evidence and disapprove thepossibility of the evidence being true.
Thenext step is giving out the closure arguments. It is the attorney’sresponsibility to summarize all the evidence presented in the trial.He or she makes efforts in convincing the jury to make a ruling infavor of the party he or she is representing. The opportunity ofopening and closing the trial is allocated to the plaintiff sincethey have an obligation of proofing their innocence. It is importanceto make good use of the opportunity and get convincing as possible. The next step is giving of instructions to the jury. It is obliged tothe judge to give the jury instructions according to the 4law.The judge then defines the issues that the jury has to decide uponand informs them of the law that is related to a specific trial. Itis not the jury`s duty to decide on how the ruling will get done buton how the law dictates.8
Theproceeding step in the judicial process is the deliberation. Themembers of the jury move to a deliberation room to consider the trialand also to make a verdict. In the jury, there is a foreperson whoserole is to ensure that discussions regarding the case get done in agood manner. All the issues presented in the case get considered. Anyissue that may not be understood by the jury is addressed to thejudge through a letter and the judge gives them advice on the matter. Every member of the jury gets allocated a fair chance to participatein the discussion. On the case that the jury does not reach a commonverdict the judge declares a mistrial. The trial starts again fromwhere the jury has selected. On the case that the verdict getsreached, the members of the jury who are in correspondence with theverdict sign a form and notify the bailiff. The verdict finally getsread by the clerk and the jury gets dismissed by the judge.9
Arrestis a common phenomenon in the current world. It consists of touchingor seizure of an individual’s body with the aim of detaining orholding that person so that he or she may answer a criminal charge.It is also essential to the commission of a particular criminaloffence. Words may be enough for an arrest to take place depending onthe case’s circumstances. Arrests, however, should be carried outon a clear situation and with full adherence to the common law.10The act of the police and criminal evidence also referred to as PACEregulates the police’s power as well as protecting the public5rights in an arrest scenario. The document below will analyze how thepolice should handle arrest scenarios with reference to PACE asSamuel Solomon gains advice on his rights.
Theinstitution of police is a state’s machinery for lawsimplementation, maintaining order and peace in the society throughensuring justice of all the citizens. It gets achieved throughprevention of acts, crimes or omission in law violation. For thisprocess to be successful, the authority at times has to detain or nabsuspicious as well as antisocial people in the society. The policeare, therefore, obliged to gather enough evidence in order to bringthe accused to get booked. There are various types of arrest in legalterminology. However, in the popular sense, detention or simplyrestriction of a person from moving by the authority is regarded as alegal arrest.11
Thepolice should pay attention to the PACE codes in any instance theyare making an arrest. PACE tries to strike the required balancebetween the police powers and the freedoms and rights of the public.The maintenance of this balance is the PACE’s basic element. ThePACE codes practice incorporates the s6topand search aspect of a person, arrest, the detention aspect,investigation, the identification aspect as well as interviewing thedetainees. According to PACE, police should be keen to treat thepublic without violating their constitutional rights.
Itis of importance to understand the possible things that can cause thearrest of a person. The individual is also required to understand therights he or she possesses if he or she finds himself under arrest.An arrest gets carried out by a police officer or any other empoweredby the government to carry out an arrest. The police officercarrying out an arrest can only do so upon a considerable andreasonable suspicion of an offence that the person to get arrestedhas committed. If an individual resists an arrest, all the essentialmeans can get employed to enable the success of an arrest.Obstructing or resisting a lawful arrest is an offence by itself. Itis in accordance to Code A 2011 of PACE that gives the policeofficers statutory powers to search a person, and if the availableevidence is enough for an arrest to take place the person getsarrested. There are three major causes that make a policeman arrestsomeone.12
Onemay get arrested by a police officer who may personally see thatperson violating any federal law, city ordinance as well as astatute. The law may a less offence as well as a serious crime.13The main thing is an officer to see that person violating the law. Ifthe charges alleged to a person are minor offences such as minortraffic offences, the common law requires an officer to issue thatperson a ticket that orders him or her to appear in court laterrather than arresting that person. However, if that person may refuseto identify him or herself, refuse to sign the citation or show anyact revealing the necessity of medical attention that person will getarrested of that minor offence7.
Thesecond scenario where a person may find him or herself under arrestis if the police officers detect any probable cause to make thembelieve that the person committed the felony even in the absence of apolice officer. The court system will eventually determine if thepolice-officer was reasonable in that belief and whether thatindividual was guilty or not. However, it might not get to that pointif the police decide to release on bail. The case of Samuel Solomonfalls in this cluster. Existence of the hammer in the car and abroken window pane was enough to make the police believe that SamuelSolomon committed the offence. The third and the last offence is whenan arrest warrant gets issued on a person.14
Inthe case of Samuel Solomon, police breached the law in a number ofways. The breaching of the law in return led to the violation ofSamuel Solomon’s rights. It is true that there was enough proof tomake the police believe that Samuel Solomon had broken the windowpane with the hammer he claimed to be his, as well as the blood inhis hand. However, the police-officers had an obligation of carryingout enough investigation before arresting him. It is contrary toPACE’s Code A 2011 that requires the police to do a thoroughinvestigation first before making any arrest.15According to the common law, an arrestee has a right to enquire fromthe police officer his cause of arrest. In Samuel Solomon’s case,the scenario is different since the police seemed to be quick ofdrawing a conclusion of his responsibility of committing thatoffence. 16
Theaspect, however, may be not enough to consider the police unlawfulsince they have right to arrest a person8as long as there are some factors that make them believe that theperson was responsible for the offense. Samuel Solomon had rightsentitled to him that protected him from the behavior of the police.The police officers were not supposed to roughen him up and push himto the pavement especially when he had a swollen ankle. It is inaccordance to Code C 2012 that covers the way the police should treatan arrestee. The code demands an arrestee receive a fair treatmentfrom the police. Samuel Solomon did not resist arrest and did notbehave in a violent manner. The police officers were, therefore, notsupposed to push him to the police car.
Thepolice officers also acted contrary to the Code C 2012 of PACE bytreating Samuel Solomon without respect. They undermined him for theoutfit he was wearing and made jokes about the clothes. The officerseven moved ahead to give him an unwarranted search. The policewomanunzipped the bag attached to his wrist and emptied the contents. Thefederal constitution also indicates that the arrested individual hasthe right to get told the grounds of his arrest.17Itshould be done in the minimum possible time and with the ordinarylanguage. However, the information can fail to be given on the casethat the circumstances were difficult or the arrested person makes ithard for an officer to give the information. The police officersshould be held accountable for the inhumane treatment towards SamuelSolomon.
Onthe case of Samuel Solomon, these rights were completely assumed. Thepolice officers did not inform Samuel Solomon on the ground on whichhe was being arrested. Drake, the lawyer to represent him wasalso9notinformed on the conditions of his arrest. In the interview room, heasked Samuel Solomon to narrate to him how he got arrested. Itindicates negligence on the lawyer and also on the police officers.Drake as a legal representative should portray concern towards hisvictim. The law should be used to eliminate lawyers who are notcommitted to their work.18
SamuelSolomon on reaching the police station did not get allocated with asolicitor immediately. The police failed in their duties when theduty officer told him that he did not need a lawyer. It is among therights of the person being arrested to see a lawyer before he canmention anything that can get used on him or her in the law court.19Drakewho was the lawyer later provided from the police to represent SamuelSolomon was not attentive on the case. He spent his time on his phonerather than listening to what Samuel Solomon was saying. He was alsoignorant when Samuel Solomon asked on which questions to answer tothe police he moved on to tell Samuel Solomon to say whatever hewants in an arrogant way. The law requires a lawyer to do his work ina professional manner which was contrary to the case of SamuelSolomon. Drake also used dirty language when he mentioned Sharon hereferred to her as penguin that was not professional. It was alsoagainst the law to charge Samuel Solomon the cost of talking to alawyer. Drake promised to send a bill to him as the cost of seeinghim. It is against the law for drake to charge Samuel Solomon thelaw should be applied to make him accountable. 20
SamuelSolomon on reaching the police station had the right of informingsomeone knows that he got arrested.21The police officers were supposed to make a call to anyone related toSamuel Solomon to tell them of the arrest if they did not allowSamuel Solomon to make the call himself.22It was not the case for Samuel Solomon the officer deliberatelyrefused to give him an opportunity to call his lawyer over theissue.23Samuel Solomon was also entitled to medical care.24PACE clearly states that a detainee has the right to receive clinicaltreatment and attention. It should get effective assoon as possible once it comes into10the police officer’s consent that the arrestee could be sufferingfrom an injury or physical illness. It also incorporates any formsigns of mental disorder of the detainee or simply if the arresteeappears to require clinical attention.25
SamuelSolomon kept on complaining about his ankle that was in pain. Therewas enough evidence of the situation because the ankle had swollen.Every time Samuel Solomon mentioned of the swollen ankle the officersmade fun of his costumes saying that superman would come to rescuehim. The treatment, therefore, was contrary to PACE’s requirementthat demand the police officers to make sure that the detaineereceive medical attention as soon as possible. On the case of SamuelSolomon, he did not receive any medical attention in the period hestayed in the police custody.26
Thepolice woman was interrogating Samuel Solomon also tried to force himto accept that he had smashed the car’s window with his hammer. Itis contrary to the constitutional law to force a person to admit anoffence that he did not get involved in, the lawyer who wasrepresenting Samuel Solomon was also ignorant on what the policewomanwas doing. Samuel Solomon also spent his night in a cell that wasfreezing an aspect that is contrary to the common law. According toPACE, a detainee has the right to stay in a comfortable place.27
Thesolicitor who represented Samuel Solomon failed in a number of waysby failing to comply with standards required by the11commonlaw. Personal integrity should be the solicitor’s central role. Thesolicitor should characterize all the professional dealings with theclients. It was contrary to Samuel Solomon’s case whose casehandlings were unprofessional in all aspects. The solicitor shouldprovide standard work and care to the client.28The aspect incorporates exercising skill, competence, and diligencein the client’s individual needs and circumstances. All theindividual needs of Samuel Solomon were, however, neglected and thusshowing how his solicitor failed. All these aspects reveal failure ofSamuel’s solicitor.29
Inconclusion, rights of the arrestees are increasingly guaranteed onthe papers and less in the real life.TheSamuel Solomon’s scenario represents the real life happeningsacross the world. These acts take place due to ignorance of thepolice officers and partly due to citizen’s failure to understandtheir rights. However, understanding of laws by the general publicmay not fully solve the problem of solving rights violation by policeofficers aspect. The governments’ arms dealing with human rightshould take their responsibilities in ensuring that the rights of thearrestees get protected.30
Best,A., & Barnes, D. W. (2007). Basictort law: Cases, statutes, and problems.Manchester: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.pp.30
Brody,R., & Ratner, M. (2000). ThePinochet papers: the case of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in Spain andBritain.London, Kluwer Law International.
Brown,D., & Wilkie, M. (2002). Prisonersas citizens: Human rights in Australian prisons.Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.pp.54
Calabresi,G. (1999). Acommon law for the age of statutes.Oxford: Lawbook Exchange.
Coicaud,J.-M., Doyle, M. W., & Gardner, A.-M. (2003). Theglobalization of human rights.London: United Nations Univ. Press.pp.60
Coomans,F. (2004). Extraterritorialapplication of human rights treaties.London: Routledge. Pp.80
Corcoran,S., & Bottomley, S. (2005). Interpretingstatutes.Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Pp.12
Cryer,R. (2010). Anintroduction to international criminal law and procedure.Cambridge [UK: Cambridge University Press.
Donnelly,J. (2003). Universalhuman rights in theory and practice.Scotland: Cornell University Press.
Donnelly,J. (2013). Internationalhuman rights.London: Westview Press. Pp. 90
Elliott,C., & Quinn, F. (2007). Englishlegal system.Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Elliott,M., & Thomas, R. (2011). Publiclaw.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eskridge,W. N. (1994). Dynamicstatutory interpretation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman,M. (2011). Humanrights: An interdisciplinary approach.Cambridge, UK: Polity Press pp. 20.
Haigh,R. (2004). LegalEnglish.London: Cavendish.
Hailwood,A. (2005). Gunlaw: fighting Britain`s deadliest gangs : inside an elite policefirearms unit.Lytham: Milo.
Huxley-Binns,R., & Martin, J. (2010). Unlockingthe English legal system.London: Hodder Education.
InHameso, S., & In Hassen, M. (2006). Arresteddevelopment in Ethiopia: Essays on Underdevelopment, Democracy andSelf-determination.London: Red sea press.
InThomas, M. (2013). Blackstone`sstatutes on property law.Pp. 10
Kafaltiya,A. B. (2008). Interpretationof statutes.Oxford: Universal Law Pub. Co.
Kavanagh,A. (2009). Constitutionalreview under the UK human rights act.Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Kellaway,E. A. (1995). Principlesof legal interpretation of statutes, contracts and wills.London: Butterworths.
Macedo,S. (2006). Universaljurisdiction: National courts and the prosecution of serious crimesunder international law.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ozin,P., Norton, H., Spivey, P., & Great Britain. (2006). PACE:A practical guide to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock,F., & Maitland, F. W. (1996). Thehistory of English law before the time of Edward I.London: Lawbook Exchange.
Sanson,M. (2012). Statutoryinterpretation.South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Simbeye,Y. (2004). Immunityand international criminal law.Aldershot [u.a.: Ashgate.
Skog,J. (2007). TheCivil Rights Act of 1964.London: Compass Point Books
Zander,M. (1973). Casesand materials on the English legal system.London: World University.
Zander,M., & Great Britain. (1990). ThePolice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.London: Sweet & Maxwell.
1 Best, A., & Barnes, D. W. (2007). Basic tort law: Cases, statutes, and problems. Manchester: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.pp.30
2 Brody, R., & Ratner, M. (2000). The Pinochet papers: the case of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in Spain and Britain. London, Kluwer Law International.
23 Brown, D., & Wilkie, M. (2002). Prisoners as citizens: Human rights in Australian prisons. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.pp.54
4 Calabresi, G. (1999). A common law for the age of statutes. Oxford: Lawbook Exchange.
35 Coicaud, J.-M., Doyle, M. W., & Gardner, A.-M. (2003). The globalization of human rights. London: United Nations Univ. Press.pp.60
6 Coomans, F. (2004). Extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. London: Routledge. Pp.80
7 Corcoran, S., & Bottomley, S. (2005). Interpreting statutes. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Pp.12
48 Cryer, R. (2010). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge [UK: Cambridge University Press.
9 Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Scotland: Cornell University Press.
510 Donnelly, J. (2013). International human rights. London: Westview Press. Pp. 90
11 Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2007). English legal system. Harlow: Pearson Longman
612 Elliott, M., & Thomas, R. (2011). Public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13 Eskridge, W. N. (1994). Dynamic statutory interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
714 Freeman, M. (2011). Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press pp. 20.
15 Haigh, R. (2004). Legal English. London: Cavendish.
816 Hailwood, A. (2005). Gun law: fighting Britain`s deadliest gangs : inside an elite police firearms unit. Lytham: Milo.
17 Huxley-Binns, R., & Martin, J. (2010). Unlocking the English legal system. London: Hodder Education.
918 In Hameso, S., & In Hassen, M. (2006). Arrested development in Ethiopia: Essays on Underdevelopment, Democracy and Self-determination. London: Red sea press.
19 In Thomas, M. (2013). Blackstone`s statutes on property law. Pp. 10
1020 Kafaltiya, A. B. (2008). Interpretation of statutes. Oxford: Universal Law Pub. Co.
21 Kavanagh, A. (2009). Constitutional review under the UK human rights act. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge University Press.
22 Kellaway, E. A. (1995). Principles of legal interpretation of statutes, contracts and wills. London: Butterworths.
23 Macedo, S. (2006). Universal jurisdiction: National courts and the prosecution of serious crimes under international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24 Ozin, P., Norton, H., Spivey, P., & Great Britain. (2006). PACE: A practical guide to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1125 Pollock, F., & Maitland, F. W. (1996). The history of English law before the time of Edward I. London: Lawbook Exchange.
26 Sanson, M. (2012). Statutory interpretation. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
27 Simbeye, Y. (2004). Immunity and international criminal law. Aldershot [u.a.: Ashgate.
1228 Skog, J. (2007). The Civil Rights Act of 1964. London: Compass Point Books
29 Zander, M. (1973). Cases and materials on the English legal system. London: World University.
30 Zander, M., & Great Britain. (1990). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. London: Sweet & Maxwell.