|
|
Post by jasonward on Aug 2, 2017 13:35:21 GMT
That makes sense. Does that mean that you are allowed in after you've given your evidence? From the same advice: In any case, we all know TV is not real life.  Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Aug 2, 2017 13:37:13 GMT
But you can stay in the public gallery post giving evidence which I never knew that for sure at the time which I think was what they mostly did in the programme and was the source of the public debate at the time.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Aug 2, 2017 16:53:29 GMT
Well, the entire discussion at the start of the case: {Spoiler}
Regarding the confession would (a) not have happened with the jury present, (b) most likely not have happened at all and been discussed at a Court Management meeting, and (c) not been dismissed out of hand since the judge didn't order the examination of the timeline at all. Total breach of rules concerning a piece of evidence as important as a confession, especially one that had been taken professionally and given without duress. |
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 2, 2017 17:40:20 GMT
Well, the entire discussion at the start of the case: {Spoiler}
Regarding the confession would (a) not have happened with the jury present, (b) most likely not have happened at all and been discussed at a Court Management meeting, and (c) not been dismissed out of hand since the judge didn't order the examination of the timeline at all. Total breach of rules concerning a piece of evidence as important as a confession, especially one that had been taken professionally and given without duress. Yeah, that struck me as odd too. But the defense lawyer tried to make the case that the confession was given under duress. Still, I've never heard of a discussion like that taking place with the jury present. |
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Aug 2, 2017 18:10:07 GMT
Well, the entire discussion at the start of the case: {Spoiler}
Regarding the confession would (a) not have happened with the jury present, (b) most likely not have happened at all and been discussed at a Court Management meeting, and (c) not been dismissed out of hand since the judge didn't order the examination of the timeline at all. Total breach of rules concerning a piece of evidence as important as a confession, especially one that had been taken professionally and given without duress. Yeah, that struck me as odd too. But the defense lawyer tried to make the case that the confession was given under duress. Still, I've never heard of a discussion like that taking place with the jury present. {Spoiler}
Even if it was under duress the defence has to prove it.
Also, a very basic thing. No one gets to choose their prosecutor in a Crown case. The state does that. Similarly you don't get to choose your ADA or DA in the US for a state trial. Civil case? Sure. Never in a Crown case. |
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 3, 2017 1:34:22 GMT
Yeah, that struck me as odd too. But the defense lawyer tried to make the case that the confession was given under duress. Still, I've never heard of a discussion like that taking place with the jury present. {Spoiler}
Even if it was under duress the defence has to prove it.
Also, a very basic thing. No one gets to choose their prosecutor in a Crown case. The state does that. Similarly you don't get to choose your ADA or DA in the US for a state trial. Civil case? Sure. Never in a Crown case. Absolutely true. |
|
