This systems needs looking at ...

http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-interviews-1440048-Apr2014/

Gardaí recording interviews still have to take written notes, and they say it’s hurting their work

Another disturbing instance of courts' inability to understand language problems

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24817562-761/language-barrier-led-to-confusion-in-dismissed-rape-case-woman-says.html

Stumbling over a defense attorney’s questions after revealing intimate details of a rape she said she suffered in August at the hands of a Belmont-Cragin man, a Hispanic woman testified in front of a Cook County judge last summer that she didn’t fully understand English.

The attorney cross-examining the Spanish-speaking woman asked if it would be easier for her to answer with an interpreter, and she said, “Yes, please.” Instead, Cook County Judge Laura M. Sullivan asked the defense attorney to rephrase the question, and the Sept. 17 preliminary hearing continued, according to a transcript obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.

When it ended, records show, the judge found there was no probable cause and effectively dismissed a criminal sexual-assault charge against Luis Pantoja, 25. He was released from the Cook County jail the same day, authorities said, but on Tuesday, he was ordered held again in lieu of $2.5 million bail.

Prosecutors now say he’s responsible for the brutal sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl last month on the Northwest Side.

Please read the whole article.

Two guilty over abusive tweets to Caroline Criado-Perez

Two guilty over abusive tweets to Caroline Criado-Perez:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25641941

Two people have pleaded guilty to sending "menacing" tweets to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez.

Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle, and John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, admitted at Westminster Magistrates' Court sending the messages over a public communications network.
They will be sentenced on 24 January.
Ms Criado-Perez, of Rutland, received abuse after her campaign for a woman to appear on a bank note resulted in Jane Austen being selected for the £10 note.
The 29-year-old said the case was a "small drop in the ocean" compared to the abuse she and other women received online.
'I will find you' The court heard that one tweet from Sorley started with an expletive and continued: "Die you worthless piece of crap." She was also told to "go kill yourself".

 Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for a woman to be featured on bank notes

She also sent the message to Ms Criado-Perez: "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
In a separate set of abusive messages Nimmo told Ms Criado-Perez to "shut up" and made references to rape followed by "I will find you (smiley face)".

Another criminal mastermind caught out by his mobile ...

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/burglar-caught-when-his-mother-rings-his-phone-1163188-Nov2013/
 

"Ian from Etobicoke"

http://globalnews.ca/news/950387/forensic-audio-experts-mixed-on-whether-ian-from-etobicoke-caller-was-rob-ford/

This is interesting on a number of levels, not the least being that it highlights the differences in the standard of proof and accepted methods between the UK/Australia and the US.
would love to hear people's comments ...

The story of "Sam Wright And The Unwilling Prosecutor" from the Barrister Blogger

Sad story from this excellent legal blog:

Aspiring barristers are still routinely taught that the role of a prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction at all costs but to act as a “minister of justice”. How much more important this was in the mid-nineteenth century when a “prisoner” (and he was always a prisoner) on a capital charge had no right to give evidence on his own behalf and no right  to representation by counsel. Nor, in the ordinary case would he have had any means to pay for it.  

Continue at
http://barristerblogger.com/published-articles-3/sam-wright-and-the-unwilling-prosecutor/

A dangerous precedent?

Anoth                      Another report from Expert Witness Guru:

Voice analysis expert testimony will not assist the trier of fact, says Puerto Rico District Court

• Nov
• 
  
• 
  
• 14

• Posted by Shweta Nawani
 
• Posted in Forensic Expert Witness, Voice Analysis Expert Witness

inShare3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness may testify to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge if it helps the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. However, following an unusual line of reasoning in the case of U.S. v. Arce-Lopez, the Puerto Rico district Court has held that a voice analysis expert testimony shall not assist the trier of fact and has denied the same to be introduced at trial.

Background of the case

After Defendants Carlos Arce–Lopez and Annete Cancel–Lorenzana were charged with conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent of distribution, their defense attorney Anita Hill received a series of phone calls and voicemails from an individual identifying himself as Javier Olmo–Rivera. He attempted to speak about Arce–Lopez’s case as a Government witness, detained at the time in the Metropolitan Detention Center. After a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation concluded that Olmo–Rivera did not make and could not have made any calls from MDC to Ms. Hill, Defendant contracted a voice identification expert to compare a voice exemplar of Olmo–Rivera with the audio recordings on Ms. Hill’s phone.

The expert, using biometric analysis, concluded that the exemplar voice matched the voice in the phone recordings. The government subsequently identified another federal inmate, Jesus Maldonado–Calderon as the caller, and moved to bar Defendant’s voice analysis expert testimony connecting Olmo–Rivera to the phone calls.

Decision of the Court

The Court found the jury to be “perfectly well-equipped” to listen to the witnesses testify in court, compare their voices to the voice in the audio recordings, and draw conclusions about whose voice is in the audio recordings. Taking note of the Daubert judgment at 591 that expert testimony must assist the jury in resolving a relevant factual dispute, the Court said this was “not an area in which expert testimony would be helpful to the jury.” Reliance was also placed on U.S. v. Salimonu, 182 F.3d 63, 74 (1st Cir.1999) which affirmed the district court’s exclusion of expert linguist testimony on the ground that it would not assist the trier of fact.

The parties’ pleadings citing a plethora of cases involving audio recordings and voice analysis implicating criminal defendants went unheard, and as to Arce–Lopez’s argument that excluding this expert testimony would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, the Court held

This case involves a voice recording of a witness, not a defendant. Because the audio recordings do not implicate the defendant’s guilt, and because the Court is not preventing the defendant from cross-examining the government’s witnesses, excluding expert testimony on this issue does not implicate his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

Having found that the voice analysis expert testimony would not “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” as per Fed.R.Evid.702(a), the Court then held that it need not decide whether the expert’s analysis was scientifically valid and reliable in satisfaction of the remaining elements of Rule 702.

Final ruling

The Government’s motion to bar the voice analysis expert testimony was granted.

**Written for the web by the EWG Editorial Team