I am interested in the question of evidence at appeal, and the broader question of what the appeal court must or should consider.
Generally we are told that if a jury has considered the evidence previously it will not be heard again.
In a specific case there is foreign male dna found under the fingernails of 2 murder victims, who fought at the scene.
The defence council in summing up said this exonerates the accused, yet the judge made no mention of this evidence in his summing up.
A guilty verdict was returned, yet the man is innocent.
Can this omission by the judge be raised as part grounds for the appeal?
Lawyers, anybody.
There are many other matters in this broad subject of fresh evidence, I suggest this thread can have wide ranging focus.
Generally we are told that if a jury has considered the evidence previously it will not be heard again.
In a specific case there is foreign male dna found under the fingernails of 2 murder victims, who fought at the scene.
The defence council in summing up said this exonerates the accused, yet the judge made no mention of this evidence in his summing up.
A guilty verdict was returned, yet the man is innocent.
Can this omission by the judge be raised as part grounds for the appeal?
Lawyers, anybody.
There are many other matters in this broad subject of fresh evidence, I suggest this thread can have wide ranging focus.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire