Law of Evidence for Forensic Scientists Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4250 words

Law of Evidence for Forensic Scientists - Essay ExampleBased on this research the suspect control the complainant against exit and damage to his jewellery and property. In the damages agreement, two notable exceptions were given by the defendant in the insurance contract loss of jewellery to employees or servants who worked in his set forth through dishonesty and breakage of antiques and chinas. The agreement made it clear that if any of these two incidents were to occur, the defendant would be free from any insurance payments. A robbery occurred at the plaintiffs premises and a safe was broken into and valuable jewels were stolen. The plaintiff had two employees, Mason and Brown. Mason had a group of friends who were members of a gang that was skilled in breaking into any safe. With knowledge of Masons acquaintances, the defendant refused to pay the claims for insurance. They argued that Mason was a suspect and there was a big run into that he was involved in the robbery. The plaintiff argued against this position of the defendant. He stated that the burden of proof was on the defendant. This is because the defendant was alleging that Mason was part of the robbery and collectible to that, it was his responsibility to proof how he knew Mason was part of the theft. The defendant also argued that it is logical and obvious that Mason was involved in the robbery because his associates had insider information and could slow break into the plaintiffs premises and steal the jewels. ... The defendant also argued that it is logical and obvious that Mason was involved in the robbery because his associates had insider information and could easily break into the plaintiffs premises and steal the jewels. They went far to turn in evidence of Masons character of a deviant. The circumstances describeed clearly that the defendant had a strong point because Mason was possible to have brought in third parties to steal from his employers. Thus, both parties had a good c onsequence. The argument was who had the onus probandi to determine the facts of the situation at hand. The judge held that it was impossible to channelize the onus on the defendant. This is because the defendant is not the one who brought the case to court. It is the defendant who has been accused. There is therefore the need for some kind of evidence to be presented to show that he was liable to prosecution. The judge rendered the evidence presented by the defendant inadmissible and stated that in a criminal proceeding, such evidence of the character of a party would lead to prejudice on the part of the judge. Thus, the plaintiff presented the contract for the insurance. The terms were read as the first form of evidence. The judge went through the case and identified the terms of the insurance contract and identified that there was a legal relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff presented the contract for the insurance and indicated that the d efendant was responsible to indemnify the loss. The judge insisted that the plaintiff showed evidence that the theft was of the nature that made the defendant liable to pay the insurance claims. In other words, the plaintiff had to turn