JOCELYN L.

DEPIDEP
EVIDENCE-3A
Reaction Paper # 1- “How to Spot a Liar”, by Pamela Meyer, TED Talks
This segment has spawned a powerful tool in determining the relationship
between emotions, the words uttered and the bodily language of a person. It has
provided information and conclusive examples as to how some people readily speak
words which they do not really mean. A sincere intention has to concur with a
genuine act and emotion. A person who is lying was made readily inferred to in this
segment.
Deception detection is a must in the legal profession. Legal practitioners are
strongly suggested to have an excellent grasp of detecting deception and use these
to seek the truth. Lying is part of a person’s everyday life. Everybody lies. A person
lies to protect others or to avoid trouble or punishment. Be it white lies or dangerous
lies, these are all deceptions.
The nature of human beings as continually adapting to change in today’s
world enables a person to look indifferent- with the lips twisted as if forming a grin
while his eyes sparkle; yet deep inside every milliliter of his bodily fluids, his blood
is boiling and his mind is planning for a sweet vengeance. Such is a face that could
launch a thousand ship; fragile and innocent-looking yet lurking within is a monster.
Scientific and psychological studies show that deception can be spotted
through a person’s demeanor. Among these tell-tale signs are the inability to
maintain eye contact, having dilated pupils, shrugging of shoulders, and sweating,
fidgeting, increase in heart rate, change in color, stuttering and others. The problem
with these signs is that they are also signs of other emotions such as nervousness,
agitation, tension and stress. Studies show that people who talk to a person they
like have dilated pupils, may stutter and may experience increase in heart rate. The
signs are the same but they do not necessarily mean that there is deception
involved.
Human behavior is diverse. Everyone has different lying patterns thus; there
is no standard protocol to detect deception through human behavior.
No book can teach us how to accurately spot a lie. The skill of lie spotting
comes with experience especially if the people being dealt with are professional liars
who are cool, calm, confident, charming and do not display any behavioral
psychophysiological reactions.
Deception detection is a continuous learning process. Legal practitioners
must be equipped with the right skill, right knowledge and experience in order to be
an excellent lie spotter. It is an educational tool both for learning students, lawyers,
litigators and even ordinary people alike.
JOCELYN L. DEPIDEP
EVIDENCE 3A
Reaction Paper # 2: “Why Eye Witnesses Get it All Wrong”, Scott Fraser,
TED Talks
In the wide arena of the court room and the field of litigation and prosecution,
the role of a witness is indispensable in reaching a verdict for cases as such.
However, the introduction and utilization of witnesses are undergoing a scrutiny and
should be considered with utmost diligence and always with the employ of his
probative value.

Wrongful convictions happen every judgement day in every court room in this
country. And they happen for all the same reasons. Sloppy police work, and other
circumstances to include eyewitness identification which is the most - is the worst
type almost. Because it's wrong about half the time.

Under the Rules of Court, evidence is defined as the means, sanctioned by the
rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
There are three kinds of evidence namely, object, documentary and testimonial
evidence. In an ideal court set-up, all three kinds of evidence are available to be
presented. However, in reality, only one or two kinds are available. In some cases,
conviction or acquittal decisions are based solely on the testimonial evidence of an
eyewitness.

In a crime where there is neither object nor documentary evidence, the testimony
of an eyewitness plays a vital role in the litigation. This implies that, the eyewitness
needs to rely on his memory of the incident that took place. Scientific studies,
jurisprudence and human nature show that human memory is not infallible. Due to
several factors such as length of time between the incident and the giving of the
testimony, the pressure of being able to provide information, and the ability to recall,
the testimony of the eyewitness may become less accurate.

Now that it has been established that eyewitness’ testimony is not infallible and
is vulnerable to biases and errors, how shall legal practitioners and investigators
help the eyewitness recall the most accurate information stored in the latter’s
memory in order to effectively administer the ends of justice? Jurisprudence and
logic dictates that even in a broad day light, there are presumed and tested
distances where an eyewitness can recount and recall vividly the same scene which
must be given credence. There are witnesses perceive the situation wrongly
because the element of jumping into conclusion is present.

The challenge now is how to sustain or come up with the reliability and credibility
of eye witnesses. And if so, are they really genuine?
JOCELYN L. DEPIDEP
EVIDENCE 3A
Reaction Paper # 3: The Evolution and Anatomy of the Philippine Rule on
DNA Evidence
The prosecution and litigation process has come into a new beginning and
paved the way for the unclogging of court dockets with the utilization of DNA testing
and profiling. It has been used as conclusive evidence in countless court cases. It
has liberated many incarcerated criminals and convicted many more. It has
identified fathers, mothers and siblings. It is highly sensitive and tamper-proof. As
DNA exists throughout the body, any tissue can be analyzed.

Humans have around 25,000 genes in total. These genes are arranged in
ways that spell "words." These words are then transcribed and translated into the
proteins that control everything in our body. If a gene is mutated, you can think of it
as mixing up the letters of the alphabet. The word comes out wrong and the whole
sentence is wrong. If that gene or area of DNA is responsible for an important
function, problems result.

In this country, it is still an infant as it was only introduced and admitted in

2007. The legal system has much more to know and to learn about the process. For
instance, it must be clear to the people what DNA match really means. Obtaining a
DNA match does not necessarily establish the guilt of an accused. Matching DNA
from a crime scene to DNA taken from an accused is not an absolute guarantee of
the accused’s guilt. It merely establishes that a certain fact exists.

Since then, its use has been of tremendous help and at the same time has
spawned controversies. The utility and power of DNA as a tool to convict criminals
or exonerate suspects has been greatly supported by the careful legal reviews and
stringent quality assurance guidelines that have been developed over the course of
nearly twenty years.

DNA results from a crime scene often don't lead to an exact match. As to this
day, DNA testing is a controversial technology. There are downsides to DNA testing,
including civil liberty infringements resulting from individuals who are analyzed
without agreeing to testing and the storage of DNA profiles on innocent people. Also,
although DNA is extremely accurate, there is concern that trace amounts of DNA in
a crime scene can falsely implicate an innocent person.

Thus, my concerning point is to have the law carefully studied, undergo

several changes as it may deem so, and to encourage law practitioners to have a
grasp of the subject matter or at least a training about it. This is to enable them to
vehemently defend their clients who can be at the mercy of DNA results.
JOCELYN L. DEPIDEP
EVIDENCE 3A
Reaction Paper #4: Judgment at Nuremberg
“In the name of the law”- what could have this entailed, its scope and who is
the “law’ to speak of?

The film, Judgment at Nuremberg, a courtroom drama centers on a military

tribunal before which four German judges and prosecutors stand accused of crime
against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi
regime. After the World War II ended, the Allied governments joined forces to make
those high-ranking Nazi officials be held accountable and be punished for the crimes
committed and laws violated. Thus, the International Military Tribunal was organized
in order to specifically to prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials with whom authority
over heinous atrocities rested.

The United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union each
appointed judges and supplied prosecutors to the Tribunal for the trials of high-level
Nazi officials seized after the war. Among the crimes charged are crimes against
humanity, war crimes and conspiracy to commit crimes. The Nuremburg trials were
one of the first organized attempts to apply principles of international law, and
established new precedents for the international community. The trial was made by
a tribunal and not by a court, thus, the rules on evidence were not strictly applied.
Moreover, German laws were not solely applied. International laws were the basis
of the judges in making their decision.

The tribunal made its own Rules of Procedure for Nuremberg Trial
Proceedings since this is a special charter organized solely for the purpose of trial
of the major war criminals. There were notable violations of human rights committed,
racism has also enveloped parcels of the proceedings and that some judges
“judged” based on their political adherence. Janning stood for the prosecution, on
his belief that even though he knew it was wrong, he had this sense of patriotism,
because of the effects of the post- World War I Versailes Treaty.

So having these issues, where then can an accused quest for justice? I must
still stand with the idealism of justice. That it should not be served because of who
a person is, his background is and his circumstances. Justice must be served for
all. And most especially, it must not be taken for granted. That it is after all, a comfort
to those whose hope is only for the honor of attaining justice.
JOCELYN L. DEPIDEP
EVIDENCE 3A

Reaction Paper #5: Michael Clayton, the Movie

“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does
everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the
perpetrator’s first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the
credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure
that no one listens. To this end, he marshals an impressive array of arguments,
from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant
rationalization. ― Judith Lewis Herman
Such is applicable to the movie, Michael Clayton, a former respected litigator,
is a fixer for a powerful law firm, Kenner, Back and Ledeen. His job is not to litigate
cases or go to trial, but instead, Clayton serves as the first responder to touchy
situations where the firm needs a person to run immediate damage control and work
to cover up incriminating evidence. Instead of working to reveal truth, Clayton’s sole
job description is to hide the truth and protect his client’s from future liability. He is
the man who can find the best-qualified lawyer to clean up the mess of the firm’s
clients. Clayton uses his contacts in the police and the criminal justice system to bail
out the firm's wealthy corporate clients.
Karen Crowder, a career woman, is uNorth’s general counsel. She is recently
promoted and she is determined to do anything in order to protect the company to
show that she is worthy of the promotion. When she came to know of the fact the
Edens is building a case against the company and that he is unstoppable, Crowder
hired professional assassins to kill Edens and later on, Clayton. The assassins
succeeded in killing Edens but failed with Clayton. Clayton took hold of the evidence
which Edens had reproduced.
In order to have evidence against Crowder, Clayton recorded their
conversation wherein Crowder gave in to $10,000,000.00 for his silence and for the
destruction of the evidence against the giant company. As a lawyer, Clayton knew
that he needs evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt Crowder’s guilt,
thus he recorded their conversation. Armed with the recording, Crowder was
arrested for murder of Edens and attempted murder of Clayton.
This is such a reality depicted in the movie that I abhor. In reality, as it does
happen, adverse parties resort to drastic moves if only to save their asses. The
eloquence of evidence collecting has already been disregarded at times which
should not be the case.
JOCELYN L. DEPIDEP
EVIDENCE 3A

Reaction Paper #8- A Few Good Men

“We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone
of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the
blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I
provide it! That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my
existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, *saves lives*-Col. Nathan
Jessep

In this dramatic courtroom thriller, LT Daniel Kaffee, a Navy lawyer who has
never seen the inside of the courtroom, defends two stubborn Marines who have been
accused of murdering a colleague. Kaffee is known as being lazy and had arranged for
a plea bargain. Downey's Aunt Ginny appoints Cmdr. Galloway to represent him. Also
on the legal staff is LTJG Sam Weinberg. The team rounds up many facts and Kaffee is
discovering that he is really cut out for trial work.
Andrew Beckett: Subsequent decisions have held that AIDS is protected as a
handicap under law, not only because of the physical limitations it imposes, but
because the prejudice surrounding AIDS exacts a social death which precede... which
precedes the physical one.
Joe Miller: This is the essence of discrimination: formulating opinions about others
not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in a group with
assumed characteristics.

Joe Miller: What do you love about the law, Andrew?

Andrew Beckett: [from the witness stand] I... many things... uh... uh... What I love
the most about the law?
Joe Miller: Yeah.
Andrew Beckett: It's that every now and again - not often, but occasionally - you
get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill when that happens.
Andrew Beckett: [while lying on a hospital bed] What do you call a thousand lawyers
chained together at the bottom of the ocean?
Joe Miller: [amused,sitting next to him on the hospital bed] I don't know.
Andrew Beckett: A good start.
12 of 13 found this interesting | Share this
Joe Miller: Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
11 of 12 found this interesting | Share this
Joe Miller: [standing next to his table] Who did you get?
Andrew Beckett: [sitting down at his table] What?
Joe Miller: Did you find a lawyer?
Andrew Beckett: I'm a lawyer.
7 of 7 found this interesting | Share this
Andrew Beckett: I appreciate your faith in my abilities.
Charles Wheeler: Faith, Andy, is the belief in something for which we have no
evidence. It doesn't apply to this situation.