Reference no: EM133942754
Rules of Evidence Canadian Law
Whether the testimony is admissible. Why or why not? If the testimony is not admissible, is there any way for the statement to be rephrased so that it would be admissible?
1. Ricardo Thanderys testified, "I knew that the guy did it because he was the only one in the bunch who was shaking."
2. George Jankowski testified, "The car was speeding, maybe 120 kilometres an hour, before it struck the deceased."
3. Baligha Ahmed testified,"! knew the guy was dead because I saw the train hit him."
4. Dr. Hans Everthen, a pathologist, testified, "The victim died of natural causes as a result of a heart attack, not from the blow to his head."
5. Dr. Mary Distu, a toxicologist, testified,"The victim was impaired by the consumption of alcohol and probably attacked the accused first."
6. Rob Dapur, an expert in alienology, testified, "The accused could not have been present when the deceased died because the accused had clear and obvious signs on her body that she had been abducted by aliens at that time."
7. Susan Holgado, a handwriting expert, testified,"The deceased did not write the words'Kent did it.'The words were written by someone else."
8. Albert Mackay, a highly respected psychiatrist, testified, "The accused could not be guilty of murder because he was clearly and obviously
suffering from a mental disorder at the time."