Trial Delay Attribution Guide

Summary

In a Jordan application, delays can be attributed to the defense if their unavailability was unreasonable or avoidable. If reasonable, delays may be attributed to the prosecution or court. A slam dunk trial phase indicates strong performance, while a weaker phase may affect the case. Evidence in drug trafficking cases can be excluded if obtained through unreasonable search or lack of clear evidence, as seen in cases like R. V. Collins and R. V. Kokesch.

Full Conversation

Who else would it be attributed to if it was reasonable
If the delay was reasonable and not attributable to the defence, it could be attributed to the following:
- The prosecution, if they failed to manage their case load effectively.
- The court, if systemic issues such as lack of resources or administrative inefficiencies caused the delay.
Do you need more detailed guidance on this matter?
What does it mean when a lawyer says that first part of trial was slam dunk
When a lawyer says that the first part of the trial was a "slam dunk," it typically means that the initial phase went very well in favor of their client. This could imply that the evidence presented was overwhelmingly supportive, the arguments were particularly strong, or the witness testimonies were highly favorable.
Do you have any specific concerns about your trial or need more detailed information on a particular legal matter?
What if the second part was not a slam dunk
Case Rating: *
If the second part of the trial was not a "slam dunk," it means that this phase did not go as favorably for the client. The evidence, arguments, or testimonies may not have been as strong or convincing, potentially weakening the overall case.
Do you have specific concerns about how the second part of the trial was handled?
Examples of cases where evidence was excluded in a drug trafficking case Canada where there was a tip plus hand to hand transactions without knowing what was being exchanged
Case Rating: *.
For evidence to be excluded in a drug trafficking case in Canada, here are some examples where evidence might be excluded due to issues like unreasonable search and seizure or lack of clear evidence:
- R. v. Collins: Evidence excluded due to unreasonable search.
- R. v. Kokesch: Evidence excluded because the search was deemed unreasonable.
- R. v. Mellenthin: Evidence excluded due to lack of reasonable grounds for search.
- R. v. Kang-Brown: Evidence from a sniffer dog search excluded due to lack of reasonable suspicion.
Do you need more information on how evidence exclusion might work in your particular situation?