The false attribution of evidence to an accused's possession, and false
testimony by a police officer constitute precisely the type of state misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Not exact matches
Every lawyer or
police officer in the world will tell you that eye - witness
testimony is
by far the least reliable evidence, so whilst you are happy to «believe your own eyes» it is still a subjective judgement at best.
In this 2015 file photo, state Rep. Charlie Stallworth of Bridgeport listens to
testimony at a law enforcement forum at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on the deadly use of force
by police officers.
The results are
testimonies to the changes occurring in
Police Stations where the J4A programme has worked and to the
Police officers elsewhere, trained
by the programme.
During the trial the defence sought to admit the expert
testimony of Richard Parent, a former
police officer and now a criminology professor at Simon Fraser University, on the topic of suicide
by cop.
Second, the appellant argues that the trial judge failed to provide legally adequate Reasons for Judgment in dismissing the appellant's Charter motion and in convicting the appellant on the «over 80» charge,
by failing to reconcile the conflicting
testimony of the two
police officers who testified as to the appellant's indicia of impairment.
Assuming that no exclusionary rule applies, evidence obtained
by a vigilante can potentially be admitted through the
testimony of a
police officer or other witness, subject to the rule against hearsay and the question of reliability.
With trials
by declaration, defendants submit their
testimony in writing, as do
police officers, and a judge rules based on the documents.