<< HE'S SUFFERED ENOUGH ~ MAIN ~ PREDICTIONS REVIEWED >>
HELPFUL LEGAL ADVICE
Here’s an unusual method of throwing out a murder conviction:
A man who confessed to killing two women walked free from court yesterday when a judge ruled the evidence too damning.
Must remember that one. Meanwhile, over at the Jesse Kelly case, please take note of Handy Court Appearance Hint #4356.
Horrific court story in today’s New York Times.
Introductory par: “A man on trial for rape shot and killed the judge in his case, a court stenographer and a sheriff’s deputy in a courthouse rampage on Friday morning, law enforcement officials said. The suspect fled, hijacking several cars and setting off a manhunt in several states across the South.”
I wonder if the case would have been thrown out if he’d killed a judge?
Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 03 12 at 02:05 AM • permalink“If you haven’t been in jail you don’t know what it’s like to be locked up in cells, no TVs and radios.”
Hey, your former mistress knows what it’s like. In fact, she’s still in a 6X2 cell and is never getting out. Excuse me while I break out the world’s smallest violin for the background music on the news reports.
Is the Daily Telegraph prone to running parodies or is life imitating The Onion? I suppose this is a case of “Society is to blame, so we’re arresting them instead.”
I’m truly boggled.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 03 12 at 03:39 AM • permalinkMan Acquitted: Evidence “Too Damning”
Posted by Frank Villon on 2005 03 12 at 03:45 AM • permalinkC.L.
Mr Brian Nichols had already been caught with a shank hidden in his shoe, but placing him in shackles for his arraignment would’ve “prejudiced potential jurors” who might have seen him as “dangerous” according to some defense attorney that was pontificating on Fox News.
Ohfercryinoutloud.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 03 12 at 03:46 AM • permalink“A man on trial for rape shot and killed the judge in his case, a court stenographer and a sheriff’s deputy in a courthouse rampage on Friday morning, law enforcement officials said. The suspect fled, hijacking several cars and setting off a manhunt in several states across the South.�
Admitting that evidence in any future trial would obviously be prejudicial.
Is it just me, or is the “justice system” completely insane?
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 03 12 at 04:07 AM • permalinkA court source said: “The evidence would be too prejudicial for the jury to hear, they would naturaly assume from some of the evidence, that he was guilty.
ummmm…. isn’t that the point?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 03 12 at 04:31 AM • permalinkWhat an M.O.
Murder a couple o shielas, make sure you’ve spoofed all over them and left some thumbprints on the neck, fess to the missus - what else? maybe take a pic?
Oh, and plead guilty. The jury can’t make an
ignorantimpartial decision when faced with this stuff. You’re outa there!Next time I kill some shielas I’m gonna smother them in DNA & I’m home free.
Under Section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 “the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.”
What that means, is if the a single piece of evidence is so overpowering it would sway a jury from giving a fair trial, it cannot be used.
That’s <u>stupid</i>. Isn’t the <u>point</u> of “evidence” to convince the jury?
Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 03 12 at 12:35 PM • permalinkWhoops… preview buttons are our friends…
Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 03 12 at 12:35 PM • permalinkIf it took 9/11 to open our eyes about terrorists, what’s it going to take to open our eyes about criminal defendants?
I’m all for fairness and justice under the law. But now, apparently, fairness means not using evidence which proves a defendant guilty because that might dispose the jury to find him guilty.
I’ve died and gone to The Great Loony Bin in Hell, and no one told me.
Remember Jim Carey in “Liar, Liar”?
“I object, your honor!” “On what grounds?” “Because it’s devastating to my case!” “I admire your honesty.”
Seriously, though: That Nichols guy in Atlanta was caught this morning. He apparently also killed an Immigration officer, took his gun, truck, and badge, and was caught holding a woman hostage in an apartment complex.
That’s why we have the death penalty over here.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 03 12 at 02:25 PM • permalinkRebeccaH: On this precedent, the 9-11 hijackers would get off. What’s more prejudicial to the defence than two burning towers and the names of 300 people being read to a court?
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2005 03 12 at 06:28 PM • permalinkThat girlfriend is a right charmer.
Blah!!!
She probably did it because she’s a victim of the system yada yada yada.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 12 at 11:05 PM • permalinkAlso, Nichols was “escorted” (one account said he was “led”) by a 50ish, five-foot tall female deputy sheriff. He is 33, 6’1” and 200 pounds. Let’s see. He tried to sneak in a knife first time, so if we can’t shackle him, what’s the next best way to get him into court without endangering anyone. Hey! I know. We’ll let him be escorted by a 50is, five-foot tall woman. That should fix his little red wagon.
Also, I have even seen (or heard of) him being called an “alleged suspect.” Now *that* is just going too damn far.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 03 13 at 03:37 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Hrm… The link didn’t work for me.
If I’m not the only one having this problem, copy and paste the following into your address bar:
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=2796000