D killed V but at retrial was acquitted of murder.
D said V had sexually abused him. There was some but inconclusive evidence for this. V, of course, was not in a position to dispute this.
It did not explain the exceptional manner of the killing. However, the court substituted manslaugher for murder. Due to time served, D was released.
A short while later D presented themselves to the police station in connection with a recent killing. This was brought to trial in autumn 2011 and immediately adjourned until 2012 for reports.
It may not go to jury if the basic facts are agreed; however there may be an issue of whether the CPS will accept an admission or whether it wishes to establish a murder charge before a jury.
We aren't arguing about actus reus here - only mens rea. In a homicide the V is in no position to dispute what is said about them.
For instance, in the Tabak trial there was the silky and snide suggestion that Ms Yeates had given confusing signals which may have encouraged Mr Tabak. This confused even some commenters on Anna Raccoon's blog in to thinking this was a plausible explanation for strangling a young woman half his size, when Gildas raised the issue of disclosure.
I said that we should get over this moral panic about not disclosing the history of conviction. The jury can decide if a conviction says anything useful about mens rea or if it is evidence of oppressive prosecution by the state. I'm much less worried about disclosing a previous case than I am about the admission of hearsay as evidence.
"I said that we should get over this moral panic about not disclosing the history of conviction. "
If there's something in the later murder mirrored in the new one (especially relating to the 'exceptional manner') then they can introduce it, I think. But it's rare. Very rare.
"I think they just re-used a page and the original connection was pure chance."
"I said that we should get over this moral panic about not disclosing the history of conviction. The jury can decide if a conviction says anything useful about mens rea or if it is evidence of oppressive prosecution by the state."
5 comments:
To be fair, some art should be against the law. http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/recent.php
Not quite.
D killed V but at retrial was acquitted of murder.
D said V had sexually abused him. There was some but inconclusive evidence for this. V, of course, was not in a position to dispute this.
It did not explain the exceptional manner of the killing. However, the court substituted manslaugher for murder. Due to time served, D was released.
A short while later D presented themselves to the police station in connection with a recent killing. This was brought to trial in autumn 2011 and immediately adjourned until 2012 for reports.
It may not go to jury if the basic facts are agreed; however there may be an issue of whether the CPS will accept an admission or whether it wishes to establish a murder charge before a jury.
We aren't arguing about actus reus here - only mens rea. In a homicide the V is in no position to dispute what is said about them.
For instance, in the Tabak trial there was the silky and snide suggestion that Ms Yeates had given confusing signals which may have encouraged Mr Tabak. This confused even some commenters on Anna Raccoon's blog in to thinking this was a plausible explanation for strangling a young woman half his size, when Gildas raised the issue of disclosure.
I said that we should get over this moral panic about not disclosing the history of conviction. The jury can decide if a conviction says anything useful about mens rea or if it is evidence of oppressive prosecution by the state. I'm much less worried about disclosing a previous case than I am about the admission of hearsay as evidence.
N.B. I think they just re-used a page and the original connection was pure chance.
"To be fair, some art should be against the law."
MY EYES!!
"I said that we should get over this moral panic about not disclosing the history of conviction. "
If there's something in the later murder mirrored in the new one (especially relating to the 'exceptional manner') then they can introduce it, I think. But it's rare. Very rare.
"I think they just re-used a page and the original connection was pure chance."
Yup, it's easily done. Nice coincidence though!
"I said that we should get over this moral panic about not disclosing the history of conviction. The jury can decide if a conviction says anything useful about mens rea or if it is evidence of oppressive prosecution by the state."
Absolutely agree.
Post a Comment