Legal Analysis: Evidence Admissibility in Gregson Murder Trial (Law)

This case study analyzes the evidence presented in the murder trial of Mr. Gregson, who is accused of murdering his colleague, Ms. Meredith Cotton. The analysis, prepared by a law student, focuses on several key areas, including the identification of potential evidentiary problems and challenges that both the prosecution and defense might raise. It critically examines the admissibility of specific pieces of evidence, such as the deceased's belongings and the results of a DNA test on the accused's dog, arguing for their potential inadmissibility based on relevance, hearsay, and privacy concerns. The study also assesses the competency of various witnesses, including Mrs. Edna Cotton, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Murray, Rodney Parsons, and Ms. Wheatley, and their ability to provide relevant testimony under the rules of evidence. Furthermore, it explores the implications of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a murder weapon, and the potential use of the Weissensteiner argument. The study provides detailed legal advice on how to challenge the prosecution's case and defend the accused, including recommendations for cross-examination and the presentation of alternative arguments to the jury. The case underscores the importance of evidence in criminal trials and the challenges of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases where real evidence is lacking.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 1
ADVICE ON EVIDENCE
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 2
MR. JOHN ANDREW
BRISBANE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS
LEVEL 1
SANTOS PLACE
32 TURBOT STREET
BRISBANE R4
MR GREGSON vs THE CROWN
OPINION

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 3
Introduction
1. I am briefed to advise the client in relation to the murder case. I am asked to advise on
evidence information on potential evidence that could put the client Mr., Greg Gregson, away in
his coming trial. The client has been charged with the murder of his colleague, Ms. Meredith
Cotton. Following an investigation, the accused has been charged with murder under section 302
of the criminal code 1899. 1
2. I am specifically asked to:
a. Identify the problems that could arise from the evidence. What issues could each party
raise the evidence? This could include consideration of relevancy.
b. What items of the evidence would be inadmissible?
c. Whether the particular witnesses are competent enough to give evidence?
d. Whether there is evidence enough for the jury to convict Mr. Gregson?
c. Any other evidentiary information that could help in the case?
Materials
I have been provided with a list of the crown intended witnesses and evidence.
Advice of evidence according to instructions given in relation to challenges that can
be raised by both parties.
According to the instructions given; there is no real evidence. The real evidence should
be tangible such as any weapon used for murder. The wallet, handbag and other items of the
deceased (Ms. Meredith Cotton). Going by the instruction, have been found under the bridge but
1 Edward Archer, Pavela Gregory and Lavie Carl, ‘A discussion of the refutation of memory-based dietary
assessment methods (M-BMs): the rhetorical defense of pseudoscientific and inadmissible evidence’
(2015) Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Vol. 90. No. 12.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 4
do not show any signs of being used in the murder of the deceased. According to the evidence by
the crown, there is not a mention of any real evidence. 2 These pauses a challenge to the case.
The crown will influence the jury into other forms of evidence i.e. circumstantial and
documentary. 3 They will seriously depend on affidavits of the witnesses. These will influence
the jury’s decision. They could probably use circumstantial evidence that will tie the accused to
the scene of the murder. 4
The same challenge could also work in our favor (the accused). I would advise that since
there is no real evidence in term of the weapon of murder. The jury should treat the other form of
evidence as an argument from ignorance. Real evidence could, therefore, be irrelevant for use in
this case. The crown planning to use the Weissenstenner style of argument during the trial will
definitely raise challenges. 5 The fact that the accused will remain silent during the trial can work
in favor of the crown. The accused being competent but not compellable at his own trial might
mean infringement on the accused side. The men of the jury might think this as a sign of guilt
and therefore ruled against the accused. The crown would argue that an innocent man would
avoid self-preservation and would want an opportunity to prove his innocence. A guilty man, on
the other hand, would remain silent so as not to reveal his guilt nature. This reasoning might
work in favor of the crown.
2 John S. Buckleton, Bright Jo-Anne and Taylor Duncan, eds, ‘Forensic DNA evidence interpretation’,
(2016) CRC press.
3 Adrian Keane and McKeown Paul, ‘The modern law of evidence,’ (2014), Oxford University Press, USA.
4 Jennifer O'Grady, ‘Theatre: Murder, they wrote: Passion for theatre and law spawns unique project’
(2015) Proctor, The 35.1. 66.
5 Joan Ockman, ‘Northwest Sciences Building by Rafael Moneo: Circumstantial Evidence’, (2017) The
Pre-Fabrication of Building Facades. Springer, Cham. 73-75.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 5
The decision could, however, work in our favor (the accused) if the evidence by the
crown does not convince the jury. We could also argue that the accused was shocked into silence
but this doesn’t hold sensitivity. My legal advice would encourage this type of argument until we
are sure that the jury isn’t convinced by the evidence. Any signs of evidence convincing the jury,
the attorney on behalf of the client should request for a reverse of the argument. Additionally,
my legal advice would be. The evidence by the crown by my analysis is not so many. When the
evidence is many this argument might have worked against us. The reason for adverse inference
might not work in the favor of the accused. The use of the Weissensteiner type of argument is
very relevant in this case.
It is also possible to raise the concern of cross-examination between the crown and the
accused. From the evidence, there is no cross-examination between then accused and the crown.
If all the witnesses have been cross-examined it will be difficult to understand why the accused
hasn’t been cross-examined. 6 The failure by the crown to do this may mean that the crown plan
to use the inference prompt. These might bring the challenge to the accused. This will make the
jury adverse more on the evidence by the witness. The lack of the murder weapon and lack of the
accused statement or cross-examination report will lead to the jury focusing on the witness’s
confession. This could be challenging, keeping in mind that the information received from the
witness might be biased and invalid.
From this point, I would advise that during the trial, the council should request evidence.
The interrogation between the accused and the prosecutor. This will help in opening the eyes of
the jury towards different angles. It also provides the accused to create a defense having listened
to all the witness speak. This will probably consist the most important part of changing the
decision of the jury. The fact that the body of the deceased Ms. Meredith Cotton has not been
6 Peter John Gibbons, ‘Language and the Law’, 2014. Routledge.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 6
found is a challenge to the evidence in this case. The forensic evidence from the body would
have easily solved the case. The case has to be solved even without the body. The jury will,
therefore, have to focus on the circumstantial evidence. Seemingly the circumstance does not
favor the accused. 7 The accused can prove all these circumstances wrong if he shows without a
doubt all his movements after the disappearance of Ms. Meredith Cotton. The lack of the body,
therefore, creates a challenge to the case.
What evidence could be inadmissible?
From the instruction provided, there is some evidence that could possibly not be admitted
by the court during the trial, for legal reasons. By the use test for relevancy method and general
admissibility of relevant evidence. I find the following evidence inadmissible by the court.
Meredith’s handbag, passport, and wallet
As per the instruction is given. These three items were turned into police custody early
August. They were recovered from under the pier three months later after the disappearance of
Meredith. The Sandgate police seemed not to have identified the ownership until the issuance of
a missing person bulletin was given by the central police. The time duration of recovery of the
items does not add logic to the case. If the pier was the scene of the murder of the deceased then
the items should have been recovered earlier. The court should, therefore, in my opinion, dismiss
this evidence on the basis that it has no logic. The crown is only using these items to mislead the
jury and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence under rule 401.
A wisdom panel laboratory test for Celine, Mr. Greg’s dog
The test result of the dog who has since died might not be admissible. The dog was
already dead by the time the postcards were sent out. The evidence, therefore, does not relate to
logic. If by the time the cards were sent out already the dog was dead, then the crown is planning
7 Peter Gibbons John, ‘Language and the Law’, 2014. Routledge.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 7
to use this evidence to needlessly present cumulative evidence. The evidence is also inadmissible
since it breaches the privacy of the accused. The crown hasn’t shown any court order allowing
them to access the DNA test of the pet dog Celine. This, therefore, should be dismissed as
evidence obtained under unlawful means. 8 There should have been a court order allowing for the
crown to access this private information. It also breaches the rule of professional client privilege.
When Mr. Greg organized the DNA test, by the fact that, he did it privately was a client
privilege. The crown, therefore, broke the privilege to acquire evidence. The above reasons
render this evidence inadmissible under rule 501.
Witness, Jonah Takalua, student
The witness statement is inadmissible based on the following two reasons. The fact that
Jonah is in frequent contact with the police and has agreed to provide this information in
exchange for a favor. It could be that Jonah only testifies a lie so that he is not charged with
truancy. This makes the witness inadmissible in the case. The words from Jonah can be treated as
hearsay. Jonah admits hearing Mr. Greg telling Meredith that he would drive her to the airport
the next day, while they discussed the changeover. The information by Jonah is trying to prove
the crowns assertion that Mr. Greg was the last person to see the deceased Ms. Meredith. The
matter asserted is, therefore, be used to prove the declarant assertion. This is basically the
definition of hearsay. 9 The statement should, therefore, be dismissed on the grounds of being
hearsay documented under rule 802 and 403.
8 Matthew Vess, Arndt Jamie and Lieberman Joel D, ‘Inadmissible Evidence and PretrialPublicity: The
Effects (and Ineffectiveness) of Admonitions to Disregard’, (2016) Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of
Trial Processes. 89-118. Routledge.
9 Matthew Vess, Arndt Jamie and Lieberman Joel D, ‘Inadmissible Evidence and PretrialPublicity: The
Effects (and Ineffectiveness) of Admonitions to Disregard’, (2016) Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of
Trial Processes. 89-118. Routledge.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 8
Whether the particular witnesses are competent to give evidence?
Everyone is competent to be a witness to a case unless under the rules of article six. For
our case will analyze if each is fit to testify for evidence during the trial.
Witness 1 Mrs. Edna cotton
Mrs. Cotton should testify according to the 601 rule. The mental infirm of a witness is
normally not used to prevent them from testifying for evidence. The mental rule under 601 rule
(c) is only used when the witness can separate reality from fantasy. The witness in question has
only a few 10memory loss problems. She is also tested and found to be well enough to testify. As
much as the witness is competent enough to testify but, we will have to question her credibility.
She has shown cases of neurosis and amnesia. The witness is therefore competent but not
credible enough.
Witness 2 Florence Nightingale
A nurse who testifies under the professional rule 702. She testifies as an expert witness.
She is therefore allowed by law to give evidence in accordance with the case. She is one of the
competent witnesses.
Witness 3 Margaret Murray, principal
Mrs. Margaret will offer her testimony under two rules. The rule 601 as a witness and
702 as a professional witness being the principal of the school. Some of her testimonies will be
used as evidence but others might be treated as opinion and may therefore not be useful in
adding to the evidence. 11 Testifying about the day the accused and the deceased got employed
10 David A. Schlueter, and Schlueter Jonathan D, ‘Texas Rules of Evidence Manual’ (2015) Juris
Publishing, Inc.
11 James Maher, ‘R v Murdoch: The falconio case: A study in identification and circumstantial evidence
[Book Review]’, (2017), Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 9
can be used as rule 702 as it’s based on professional fact and therefore can be used as evidence.
The temporal promotion can be used as evidence under 701 as she testifies as a professional
expert. The argument that Mr. Gregson was difficult to deal with. Additionally, that he was
suffering from temper tantrum and that he felt undervalued by the school. The three are treated
under rule 703, the expert opinion testimony and can, therefore, be used as evidence during the
trial. The testimony about Mr. Greg organizing his own farewell and driving in circles can be
objected under rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue. It is the opinion of the witness.
Witness 3, Mr. Rodney Parsons, science teacher
Mr. Parson will witness under the 601 rule. Being a friend of the accused. However, he
might not be a witness under the law of the dead man statues. The crown will not use his
argument of going to Auckland and emailing the postcards back. This is because the dead man
rule states that, using a dead person’s testimony just because they are not around to defend
themselves at that time is unlawful. This rule will make the crown not use such evidence against
the accused. The witness, therefore, can only give evidence under rule 601. Paterson is,
therefore, a competent witness.
Witness, Ms. Wheatley, Teacher
Ms. Wheatley will testify under the rule 601. Being a teacher that knew the deceased. The
evidence will however not be used during the trial as it beats the dead man statues rule. The
statement by her insinuates a conversation that the only person that can refute or agree to those
claims are the deceased. These directly infringe the Deadman statute under the common
approach of law. 12 This renders such evidence and witnesses’ incompetent. This witness is
therefore incompetent. The evidence might only work if the court rule that it will work in terms
Territory 244. 58.
12 Gregory P Joseph, ‘Modern visual evidence’, (2017) Law Journal Press.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 10
of the plaintiff and accused. This will apply if the court uses the civil rights way of handling this
case.
Witness 4, Jonah Takalua, Student
Jonah is competent witnessed based on rule 601. He is a student claiming to have had a
conversation between the accused and Ms. Meredith. 13 The evidence by Jonah might be
incompetent based on rule 802. Jonah’s evidence is heard say since it qualifies under the section
802(C). His statement that the accused had agreed to drive the deceased to the airport that
morning, proves the statement of the crown prosecutor that Mr. Greg was the last person to see
the deceased. 14 This is hearsay proving witness incompetent. Secondly, the witness might be
considered incompetent as he acted under the influence of the police. He is returning a favor of
not being charged with truancy. This affects the rule 602 that stresses on the witness acting
truthfully. 15
Whether there is adequate information for the jury to convict Mr. Greg
If the evidence is accepted, there is a possibility the jury might convict Mr. Greg.B being
that there is no real evidence, the jury will be forced to act through circumstantial evidence.
16Circumstantial evidence places Mr. Greg with a motive. 17 The motive is so that he takes over
as the head of drama coordination, a position previously held by the deceased. He shows very
13 Eemeren Van, H. Frans and Houtlosser Peter, ‘Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of
strategic maneuvering’, (2015) Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer,
Cham. 443-454.
14 Caroline A., Sabin et al., ’Is there continued evidence for an association between abacavir usage and
myocardial infarction risk in individuals with HIV? A cohort collaboration,’ (2016) BMC medicine 14.1. 61.
15 Sasha Reid, ‘Compulsive criminal homicide: A new nosology for serial murder’, (2017), Aggression and
violent behavior 34. 290-301.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 11
strong emotions when he is told that the position is temporary. He even demands to pay arise and
other benefits like the construction of the theatre hall. 18 The announcement he makes on the P.A
summarizes his frustrations and further proves his guilt. All the evidence also points to him
being the last one to see the deceased. The evidence from Ms. Whitley and Jonah places him at
the scene of the murder. 19 Whitley theory that he went to meet someone at the pier before the
morning of her death, the items are found at the same place balances with the theory of the
crown. Jonah having had the conversation between the two, then according to the airplane
records, the deceased doesn’t sign in for the flight. This balances with the theory that he is the
one who saw her last. 20 According to the law, circumstantial evidence demands motive and
scene. This proves Mr. Greg guilty and therefore the jury could convict him. The theory of Mr.
16 Kim P. Roberts, and Cameron Sean C, ‘Observations from Canadian practitioners about the
investigation and prosecution of crimes involving child and adult witnesses’, (2015) Journal of Forensic
Psychology Practice 15.1. 33-57.
17 Michael H Graham, ‘Graham's Federal Rules of Evidence in a Nutshell’, (2015).
18 Sara Murphy, ‘Inadmissible Evidence: The Trial of Madeleine Smith and Collins's the Law And The
Lady,’ (2016) Victorian Literature and Culture 44.1. 163-188.
19 Kay Cook, and Natalier Kristin, ‘Gender and evidence in family law reform: A case study of
quantification and anecdote in framing and legitimising the ‘problems’ with child support in Australia’,
2016, Feminist Legal Studies 24.2. 147-167.
20 Jack Weinstein, and Berger Joseph M. McLaughlin Margaret, ‘Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 402,
Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible’, Weinstein's Federal
Evidence 2.

ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 12
Greg’s pet dog DNA being found matching with the DNA recovered from the postcards proves
the theory of the crown that Mr. Greg was the last one to see the deceased. 21
Any other legal evidentiary advice
I do advise that if Mr. Greg would like not to be convicted when the case goes to trial. He
should prove beyond a reasonable doubt using evidence like travel documents and witnesses that
he was not at the place of the murder that morning when the deceased went missing. He should
also prove that his motives were directed towards making the institution better and not taking
over Meredith position.
References
Archer, Edward, Gregory Pavela, and Carl J. Lavie, ‘A discussion of the refutation of memory-
based dietary assessment methods (M-BMs): the rhetorical defense of pseudoscientific and
inadmissible evidence’ (2015) Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Vol. 90. No. 12.
Buckleton, John S., Jo-Anne Bright, and Duncan Taylor, eds, ‘Forensic DNA evidence
interpretation’, (2016) CRC press.
21 Martin Loughlin and Tschorne Samuel, ‘Public law,’ (2016) Routledge.