One for the lawyers
I am perplexed, Never being able to sort out weighty problems without help I am throwing this one open.
In a recent trial of two youths accused of murderering a schoolboy the key witnesses recant, on the stand, their previous and critical to the crown, evidence. This caused doubts about the evidence and the jury could not agree on a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial and the youths went back to gaol. But here is my point - why is there going to be another trial and if the evidence still fails to hold up in court, will there be another trial.
So the question is, how many times can one be tried for the same offence?
In a recent trial of two youths accused of murderering a schoolboy the key witnesses recant, on the stand, their previous and critical to the crown, evidence. This caused doubts about the evidence and the jury could not agree on a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial and the youths went back to gaol. But here is my point - why is there going to be another trial and if the evidence still fails to hold up in court, will there be another trial.
So the question is, how many times can one be tried for the same offence?
7 comments:
If my memory of Law and Order is correct, there is a big difference between a mistrial and an acquittal. If it's the former, then there is a do-over because the trial wasn't completed.
It's only if the accused is found innocent that they can't be charged again with the same offence. Mind you, if found innocent of murder, the Crown could still slap a charge of manslaughter or something else against the person. They just can't charge them with murder again.
I always liked the charge of "depraved indifference" that we hear on Law and Order and often accuse my esteemed spouse of that charge in household matters.
Either way, it's still all rigged in favour of the Crown and they will prevail in the end.
"Rigged in favour of the Crown", and you call yourself an advocate of the poor?
IN the Manners case the bonehead judge ruled that the police needed a freakin search warrant to test the bad guys hands for gun powder. Never mind they want to preserve the evidence before it was washed away. They in fact did find gun powder but it wasn't allowed. The Crown will ask for another trial to try and get a judge to allow the evidence that will hopefully convict the piece of scum.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
So much for being rigged!
"Rigged in favour of the Crown", and you call yourself an advocate of the poor?
and
the bonehead judge - wow.
No wonder you sign in as anonymous with such amazing statements. I don't think you would even qualify for the jury with this stuff!
Thanks, clueless Anonymous, for giving me a huge laugh with your remarks.
It's obvious you have never given this a thought or you'd know the truth of that old saying: there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
The blatant and disgraceful criminalization of the poor is just one reason why their defenders are generally leery of our so-called justice system. You don't have to be non-white to know about unequal treatment and discrimination, any low income kid by the age of ten is well aware of it and has felt its sting.
Like I said recently: Question Authority, before they question you! If you're poor, that is especially relevent.
there is a big difference between a mistrial and an acquittal.
Aha ther is the question, why should a hung jury be a mistrial, the thinking jury used the facts available to come to a decision and neither side would budge, that's a decision in itself
"it's still all rigged in favour of the Crown"
For several years I worked as a court reporter for the Cobourg Sentinel Star, I attended the spring and fall assizes as well as juvenile, family and provincial court. I must be the most incredibly stupid observer on earth, because I never noticed that the cards were stacked, er uh, 'all rigged' in favour of Crown Attorney, Geoffrey Bonnycastle.
But then again, I wasn't educated by that astute U.S. enterpainment tv program, Flaw and Disorder.
Let us remember that both the crown and defence can call a mistrial, both can appeal.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on television either. That said, given the supposed atmosphere of violence that attended the final days of the proceedings with gang members outside the courthouse wearing gang colours apparently for the purpose of intimidating witnesses, the jury, the judge and just about anybody else worth intimidating -wasn't a change of venue in order?
Tuktoyuktuk maybe? Or Moose Factory?
Post a Comment