In the past years, numerous instances of wrongful convictions have been recorded on a global scale. Several decades ago an American judge sighted an annual error margin of 5% for all sentences passed. This translates to the incarceration of several thousand people in spite of their innocence and vice versa. For the latter case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes the most salient of underlying factors in determining the course of events. On several occasions, the competence of the criminal defense attorneys has determined the direction taken by the cases. Similarly, a gross misinterpretation of the law and negligence by the judges also determines the way a case will be concluded. With this in mind, it can be said that most cases of wrongful convictions do not arise due to incompetence but are brought about by negligence. This occurs on two levels, with omissions in the written law and on the part of practitioners. In one of the mentioned cases, Chae an appellant is denied part of his claims since the hearing judge overlooked judicial precedent, which was established by Heller v Martens. Some instances of double standards can be detected in the trial process, especially after courts revert to moral verdicts when allotting culpability (Boyd, 2007, p. 174). This is extremely unprofessional and should be avoided at all costs. Discrepancies, which ultimately result in wrongful convictions, come about due to failures while apportioning the respective blameworthiness of all parties involved. When Chae sought the attention of the Alberta appellate judge in 2005, he was forced to forfeit certain claims he had made. He was injured in an accident that occurred as his friend drove them home from a social evening they had. During the journey, they had an accident and Chae sustained several injuries. Since he failed to fasten his seatbelt at the time of the accident, he was adjudged careless hence having to forego some claims he had made. In the 2002 trial pitting Heller against Martens (which serves as judicial precedent to date), it was decided that the causation approach should be overlooked when apportioning liability. The court should instead focus on the comparative blameworthiness approach. This implies that the judge should have analyzed each negligent action in equal measure. It should be noted that she failed to do this, by focusing entirely on Chae’s faults while neglecting those committed by Min the driver. In as much as Chae’s failure to fasten a seat belt placed him on the wrong, Min over sped and drove under the influence of alcohol. In accordance with the Acts governing contributory negligence established in the year 2000, a judge should establish the degree to which each of the parties involved deviated from the standard of care. Summarily, this was a wrongful conviction, since the comparative blameworthiness approach would have apportioned 75% negligence to Min and 25% to Chae. On the matter of battered women, some instances of wrongful convictions arising from complete misinterpretation or bias have been cited. It is commonplace for male judges to show sympathy to the side they relate with if a case is presented before them. Most juries have also fall