Courtroom Procedures Essay Examples

Introduction

The court trial procedure of Donald Brashear v Marty McSorley used oral, documentary and real evidence. The plaintiff in the case was Donald Brashear, who was suing Marty McSorley for assault where he was hit on the head with a hockey stick. Oral evidence can be stated to be the verbal information or statement of the case as evidence. During the procedure, oral evidence was the first to be administered when the plaintiff and other witnesses testified (Garland, 2010). Before the witnesses testified, they first took an oath in, which they would tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The witnesses in the case followed the Canadian Evidence Act. The oral testimony in this case was done when the Crown prosecutor and the defense attorney asked the witnesses questions. They provided the information that was needed for both sides. The witnesses for the plaintiff were able to point out the person who was responsible for beating up Brashear. The plaintiff himself was able to give the full account of what lead to the beating. According to the eyewitnesses, they stated that previously the two men had fought before the head bashing occurred.

The documentary evidence

The documented evidence was found from the texts written by McSorley via a mobile phone to Brashear. The text stated, “Brashear was going to regret messing with him.” The Crown prosecutor presented the documented evidence. The police officers initially found this evidence when they looked at the suspect’s phone records. The police officers offered the information to the prosecutor of the case. The other documented evidence was the plaintiff medical records. After the Brashear was beaten by a hockey stick, he lost conscious and was taken to the hospital. In the hospital, He was found to have a concussion. He is a hockey player who was told that he would miss three week’s games. He started having problems with his memory due to the head injury. These injuries affected his career. The Crown prosecutor will prove the facts in issue through thorough investigation of the case.
The crown prosecutors are the government lawyers that are used to prosecute criminals. When they take charge, they are not going to act as the lawyers of the victims; instead they work for the whole community. The prosecutor in this case was fully prepared with all the evidence and facts of the case. The prosecutor researched, reviewed and gathered all the important evidence of the case. The evidences provided were incriminating for the defendant. This fact made it hard for the defense team to claim otherwise. The interviewing of the witnesses in the court trials was very good in that the witnesses were able to provide more information about what happened between the defendant and the plaintiff. The prosecutor was trying to prove to the court that a crime has been committed without any reasonable doubt.

The advantage of documentary evidence

There are many advantages of the documentary evidence especially in this court trial. It has been stated that the documentary evidence is the best form of evidence (Garland, 2010). The reason for stating this is because of the information it has will make the judges and the jurors to be able to read and listen to the evidence freely. This fact will make it more credible than other forms of evidence especially oral evidence. The other advantage of the documentary evidence is that the jurors will be able to carry the evidence with them when they are deliberating (Garland, 2010). This fact will make it easy for them to come up with the best verdict. In this case, the jurors will be able to carry the report where the defendant sent threatening texts to the plaintiff before bashing him.

Disadvantages of the documentary evidence

There are usually problems that come up with the authenticity of the evidence. The reason for this is because the document is usually done outside the courtroom and therefore, the defense lawyers will always try to claim that the information in the evidence might have been falsified. Another disadvantage that can be seen from documentary evidence is that it can be lost or stolen. There are many instances when the evidence has been stolen and, therefore, will not be used in the cases (Garland, 2010).

The real evidence

The real evidence in this case trial was the hockey stick that is claimed to have been used to hit the plaintiff. The Hockey stick as explained by the police officers was found in a dumpster a few distances from where the plaintiff was hit in the head. The reason why it was stated to be evidence was because of the partial prints found on the hockey stick matched that of the defendant. The evidence, in this case, can be stated to have proven a fact-in-issue in the case. This information means that the real evidence on its own was really authentic and caused the defendant to seem to be guilty.
In conclusion, the court trial in this case showed that the defendant was going to lose the case due to all the overwhelming evidences brought to the court. When the procedure was continuing, it became quite clear that the defendant was going to lose the case to the plaintiff. The Crown prosecutor had thoroughly researched the case and was able to have good evidences (Garland, 2010). This thorough research is what caused the prosecutor to have good eyewitnesses of events that occurred in the fight between the plaintiff and the defendant. The other evidences that were produced were the hockey stick used in the assault, the threatening message hours before the assault and the medical reports of the plaintiff. All the evidence seemed to show the fact in issue of the case in trial. The trial of the case went according to the Laws of procedure in Canada.

Reference

Canada Evidence Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5. ( 2014, Dec 06). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-5/FullText.html
Garland, N. (2010). Criminal Evidence, 6e. New York: McGraw Hill.