Students will be required to form groups of two, and to make a 30 minute appointment with the lecturer by Zoom, at a convenient time in Week 6 or the Vacation Week.

One student will be the prosecutor and one student will be the defence counsel, in relation to a witness.

The witness statement and briefing will be posted in Week 2 of term.

Each student is to develop between ten and twenty questions to put to that witness, following the rules of evidence. Those questions must be submitted through Moodle by the due date. Students will then question the witness, played by the Lecturer, in realtime via Zoom.

An assessment rubric will be posted to the Moodle site. The criteria are:

1. Understanding of the brief and facts.

2. Understanding of the concept of relevance, and application to the formulation of questions.

3. Demonstrated understanding of the rules applying to different forms of examination.

4. Ability to use oral examination to assist with the formulation of a case.

5. General skills of advocacy.

6. General understanding of evidence law.

Word limit: 2000 words (absolute maximum – do not exceed 2000) excluding footnotes.

To complete this assignment you will need to obtain a copy of the 1958 movie Twelve Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda. It is available for purchase on ITunes for about $12, or can be purchased through retailers such as JB Hi-Fi. Many local DVD hire places will also have a copy in the Classics section. You may also be able to find dodgy copies on YouTube, but ensure you are watching the 1958 black and white version, not the 1990s remake or films of the various stage productions.

If obtaining a copy of the DVD is beyond your means then please contact me. We can either make arrangements for you to borrow mine, or I have an alternative assignment question available. I am not making that question public at this time because I don’t want to seem like I am offering a choice – my strong preference would be for everyone to do the Twelve Angry Men assignment. When this subject has been run previously, all students have been able to get a copy of the movie. If you wish some additional resources, the screenplay for the movie can readily be located online in PDF form.

It is important to cite QUEENSLAND LAW authorities for your answers.

Questions (Every question should be attempted, with a maximum of 100 words for all but the last question, and an overall maximum of 2000 words)

Question One

Pretend for a moment that you were the Defence counsel, and that you had thought through the full range of issues considered by the jury. Write an excerpt from your closing address, explaining why the defendant should be acquitted.

Question Two

In the early scenes of the movie, we hear the judge concluding his instructions to the jury. He sets out the standard of proof which must be met in the case. Are you happy with his instructions to the jury? If yes; explain why it was important for the judge to give these instructions. If no, rewrite those instructions to show what you think the judge ought to have said.

Question Three
In his instructions, the judge makes it clear that the jury cannot appeal for clemency: if the accused is convicted, the death penalty will be pronounced. From a practical perspective, do you think this changes the threshold of “reasonable doubt”? Did the fact that the case was a death-penalty case affect the jurors' assessment of the evidence?

Question Four

Juror 3 states “I'd slap those tough kids down before they start any trouble.” Why is a bias such as this important in the context of evidence law? Reflect generally on the theme of prejudice in this movie.

Question Five
Juror 12, speaking of the prosecutor, states “I thought he was really sharp, the way he hammered his points home one by one in logical sequence.” Reflect on the importance of formal logic in the presentation of evidence. In the end, in a jury trial, is an appeal to logic more important than an appeal to emotion?

Question Six

Juror 3 states “The kid's a dangerous killer, you could see it.” Is this merely bias, or is it based upon a legitimate assessment of proper evidence? If it is based on evidence, what sort of evidence? What are the dangers of this form of evidence?

Question Seven

Juror 10 says, of the Defendant's socio-economic group, “You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” What aspect of evidence law is under assessment here? If you were the Defence counsel, how might you circumvent this view?

Question Eight
Juror 2 believes in the defendant's guilt because “Nobody proved otherwise.” Juror 8 replied “Nobody had to prove otherwise. The burden of proof's on the prosecution.” To what extent do you think the general public understands this?

Question Nine
Juror 3 states “These are facts. You can't refute facts.” Is he right?

Question Ten
Juror 7 lists the previous offences committed by the Defendant. What sort of evidence is this? Would it be admissible in Queensland?

Question Eleven
At one point, the murder weapon (a knife) is brought into the jury room, and Juror 8 then produces a similar knife. What sort of evidence is the murder weapon? How do you feel about Juror 8's actions in purchasing and producing the knife?

Question Twelve
The defendant claims to have been thrown down a set of stairs by Detectives, and to have been interviewed alone, with the corpse of his father in the next room. During his interview, the defendant may have made admissions against his own interests. Should any of the evidence from the police interviews have been admitted? Why or why not?

Question Thirteen

 At one point jurors 8 and 4 argue about whether the knife used in the murder was the same knife purchased by the defendant. Juror 8 says “It's possible!” that the knives were different. Juror 4 replies “... but not very probable.” Do you believe at this point, by acknowledging that it was “possible but not probable” that the knives were different, Juror 4 had formed reasonable doubt?

Question Fourteen

The jury spends some time considering the evidence of the old man downstairs. Considering his testimony, which of the limitations of oral evidence seem to be at play? (There may be more than one)

Question Fifteen

The jury requests, and is given, a diagram of the apartment. What sort of evidence is this, and why is it classified that way? What would have had to happen, within the court room, for this evidence to be admitted?

Question Sixteen

After examining the apartment diagram, the jurors conduct an exercise to see if the old man could have made it to the door in time. Let us pretend this re-enactment took place in the courtroom, not the jury room. What sort of evidence would this have been? If you were the Defence lawyer, would you have objected? How do you feel about this occurring in the jury room?

Question Seventeen

Much is made of the defendant allegedly shouting “I'll kill you!” However, the evidence of what he said was given by another witness. Why was this not hearsay?

Question Eighteen (300 words)

What, in your opinion, was the most compelling evidential issue in helping the jury to change their minds? At what point in the logical progression of the movie did the tide turn, and eventual acquittal become inevitable?

The criteria and weighting are as follows.

• Identification of primary issues (5 marks)
• Demonstrated understanding of the subject matter (10 marks)
• Application of facts to law (5 marks)
• Clear conclusion and answer to each question (5 marks)
• Analytical ability (2 marks)
• Use of reference sources (1 mark)
• Vocabulary and grammar (2 marks)

I assess students on their ability to demonstrate thinking, writing and presentation skills, to comprehend the material, to process the material and to provide a critical analysis and logical discussion of the law. Students are required to communicate clearly, logically and in a concise manner. I expect you to present material in a professional manner. Please paginate shall paper and used correct spelling and grammar. You must appropriately reference and attribute the work of others.

Fail

You will have shown evidence of the following:

• the written expression is poor and difficult to understand
• the answer is poorly organised
• referencing is generally inadequate
• lack of familiarity with the legislation and its application
• failure to identify and address the issues in the question
• reasoning and application demonstrated is poor

Pass

You will have:

• made a conscientious attempt to address the topic and/or answer the question
• shown evidence of having done the required reading and of having understood the reading
• presented a reasonable argument to back up your conclusions
• demonstrated a reasonable level of spelling and grammatical usage
• used referencing but this may need improvement
• issues that may need to be identified and addressed in more depth

Credit

You will have:

• addressed the topic and/or answered the question directly
• presented soundly based arguments and backed these up with reasons
• gone beyond description to analysis of key issues
• used the English language well
• shown evidence of reading widely
• demonstrated understanding of the reading
• used referencing that is satisfactory

Distinction

You will have:

• met the above criteria for a credit
• demonstrated the attainment of a high degree of understanding of the concepts of the course
• demonstrated deep insight into the application of knowledge and skills acquired to complex theoretical and practical situations
• used referencing correctly
• made reference to all appropriate legislation

High Distinction

You will have:

• met the above criteria for a distinction
• demonstrated the attainment of an outstanding level of achievement regarding the objectives of this course
• demonstrated an interesting and/or original approach/idea/argument
• demonstrated mastery of the relevant referencing system
• ensured your conclusions are backed by well-reasoned arguments demonstrating a detailed insight and analysis of issues
• ensured your references are made to the appropriate legislation for particular issues