innocent prisoners and newly discovered non
... may only be attacked collaterally on grounds of newly discovered evidence if the new
evidence creates fundamental doubt about the reliability and accuracy of the proceedings);
Mulroy, supra note 7 (analyzing the evidentiary standards used in Tennessee regarding
newly discovered evidence claims); Mus ...
Evidence of Sexual Experience
... The Court of Criminal Appeal in G.K. made it clear that when
asked to grant or refuse an application under s. 3 of the Act of 1981 the
trial judge must make a judgment as to whether or not he is satisfied in
the terms of section 3 (2). The Court said if the trial judge concludes “that
it would be un ...
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
... piece of evidence of rape be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Is this not what an accused is
entitled to in a criminal trial? It is trite that the standard of proof required of a prosecution, in
a criminal trial, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that every requirement of the
RTF 363K - High Court of Australia
... respondent's notice of contention. The trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to identify
the permissible and impermissible uses of the cannabis evidence for the purposes of s 34R(1) of the
Evidence Act. The verdict at trial was therefore not attended by an error of law. A majority of ...
R v Thomas
R v Thomas was an Australian court case decided in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 18 August 2006. It concerned the conviction in February 2006 of Joseph Thomas (nicknamed ""Jihad Jack"" in the media) on terrorism-related charges, specifically receiving funds from Al Qaeda. The appeal revolved around the admissibility of a confession Thomas made during an interrogation in Pakistan in 2003. The court found that the evidence, which was crucial to Thomas' convictions, was inadmissible because it had not been given voluntarily. The court accordingly quashed his convictions, but after further hearings ordered on 20 December 2006 that he be retried rather than acquitted.