She's so credible that the jury will slurp up every word she says, and that's unfair, so the judge dismissed the robbery charge and freed the defendant. (Seriously.) [Ed.: Actually, this has a solid basis in law, but I don't want to spoil it for you. If you're interested, see the Editor's Note at the bottom of today's post.] Daily Mail
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Ah, Chuck, you're confusing "law" and "justice" again. :(
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 01/14 at 08:03 AM
I'm having a hard time with this, at least as reported (but by the Mail, so...).
The judge was within the bounds of authority to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence (the 'solid basis in law'); however, IANAL but I'm pretty sure that there's no legal grounds for dismissing a case based on unverifiable speculation about the thoughts and feelings of the jurors.
If the judge felt that the eyewitness evidence alone was insufficient, he should have thrown the case out - but without the editorialising, and preferably earlier in the proceedings (ie at the first point at which it became clear that the witness saw her attacker 'only fleetingly').
The judge was within the bounds of authority to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence (the 'solid basis in law'); however, IANAL but I'm pretty sure that there's no legal grounds for dismissing a case based on unverifiable speculation about the thoughts and feelings of the jurors.
If the judge felt that the eyewitness evidence alone was insufficient, he should have thrown the case out - but without the editorialising, and preferably earlier in the proceedings (ie at the first point at which it became clear that the witness saw her attacker 'only fleetingly').
Posted by outeast on 01/14 at 08:27 AM
When I read the blurb, why did I instinctively know that the picture of the witness would be of the long-haired blond variety?
Posted by kay in maine on 01/14 at 10:01 AM
What in the hell is a yob?
Posted by Madd Maxx on 01/14 at 10:24 AM
"Yob" is "boy" spelled backwards (duh! I mean that's its actual origin) and is Brit for a young thug.
Posted by Rodger on 01/14 at 10:48 AM
sorry to see the Brits legal system is headed down the same toilet as ours...
Posted by mrjazz on 01/14 at 10:58 AM
and after looking at the 'mugshot' of the judge..
GUILTY!!!!
of being a wanker.....
GUILTY!!!!
of being a wanker.....
Posted by mrjazz on 01/14 at 11:00 AM
Rodger, you should try listening to Bill Hicks' stand up routine on british thugs. If I remember correctly he quotes a headline in a british paper (while he was on tour there) that says something to the affect of, "Young hooligans turned over a dustbin in (some british town, I don't remember which one)". He jokes about putting the hooligans (with their pennyloafers and button up shirts)up against the Bloods.
Yob, how queer is that?
Yob, how queer is that?
Posted by Madd Maxx on 01/14 at 11:03 AM
This is a joke right? Please tell me its a joke.
So, after robbing and assaulting her, she testifies against the man in a court of law. Than told so sorry you are to believable and the criminal is let go. Now so armed with the knowledge of his victims name and that she can't testify against him he is off to repeat this crime again and again...
But wait, it's Britain she can't even get a weapon to protect herself! and I thought America was getting screwed up.
So, after robbing and assaulting her, she testifies against the man in a court of law. Than told so sorry you are to believable and the criminal is let go. Now so armed with the knowledge of his victims name and that she can't testify against him he is off to repeat this crime again and again...
But wait, it's Britain she can't even get a weapon to protect herself! and I thought America was getting screwed up.
Posted by Wenthral on 01/14 at 11:06 AM
Here is a link to the text of Bill Hicks' hooligan rant. The video is better.
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/so-i-m-over-there-in-england-you-know-trying-to/347425.html
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/so-i-m-over-there-in-england-you-know-trying-to/347425.html
Posted by Madd Maxx on 01/14 at 11:22 AM
very funny maxx. for some reason 'a clockwork orange' comes to mind as an example of british crime i guess.
way to call the victim a liar. he could be a judge over here.
way to call the victim a liar. he could be a judge over here.
Posted by patty in ohio on 01/14 at 01:08 PM
Sounds like a terrible thing to happen to her.
But I also don't like the thought of convicting anyone for a major crime based on a single testimony of 'he did it.'
Tough situation, truly. But I think there needs to be supporting evidence.
If he did do it, his prints should be all over the glove box, no?
Otherwise, Wenthral, I could go to your town, report a crime, and claim you did it. Unless you had a rock-solid alibi, you'd go to jail.
But I also don't like the thought of convicting anyone for a major crime based on a single testimony of 'he did it.'
Tough situation, truly. But I think there needs to be supporting evidence.
If he did do it, his prints should be all over the glove box, no?
Otherwise, Wenthral, I could go to your town, report a crime, and claim you did it. Unless you had a rock-solid alibi, you'd go to jail.
Posted by Murph1908 on 01/15 at 06:50 AM
There's a lot of truth there, Murph, although AFAIK there is no suggestion that the woman knew the guy from elsewhere and she did pick him out of a lineup (this lessens, but does not eliminate, the risk of false identification).
For me, though, the problem is still that the judge took the witness' believability into account. That really is risky: it should not be allowable to dismiss a case because a witness' credibility means her evidence might have been given undue weight. Where could that lead? Most cases will have winesses whose appearance, race, cultural background, class, etc are likely to prejudice the jury one way or another regardless of their actual testimony. It's not the judge's job to second-guess what the jury might think - at most he could have warned them to be aware of that possibility.
For me, though, the problem is still that the judge took the witness' believability into account. That really is risky: it should not be allowable to dismiss a case because a witness' credibility means her evidence might have been given undue weight. Where could that lead? Most cases will have winesses whose appearance, race, cultural background, class, etc are likely to prejudice the jury one way or another regardless of their actual testimony. It's not the judge's job to second-guess what the jury might think - at most he could have warned them to be aware of that possibility.
Posted by outeast on 01/15 at 07:04 AM
outeast-
Agreed. Making the judgment in that way is silly.
However, if the judge would have said, "I am dismissing this case due to lack of evidence, in that the only evidence against the defendant is an identification by the victim from a cursory, 3-second view of the defendant during an eventful and stressful period of time." I'd be fine with it.
Regarding the 'knowing the victim' piece of the false identification. Yes. There would definitely be no motive to falsely accuse someone in this case. But the fact does remain, as a racist comment often states, that members of one ethnicity often have more difficulty distinguishing between members of another ethnicity. No malice need be intended for the false accusation to occur.
I do believe in the 'better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted' theory.
Agreed. Making the judgment in that way is silly.
However, if the judge would have said, "I am dismissing this case due to lack of evidence, in that the only evidence against the defendant is an identification by the victim from a cursory, 3-second view of the defendant during an eventful and stressful period of time." I'd be fine with it.
Regarding the 'knowing the victim' piece of the false identification. Yes. There would definitely be no motive to falsely accuse someone in this case. But the fact does remain, as a racist comment often states, that members of one ethnicity often have more difficulty distinguishing between members of another ethnicity. No malice need be intended for the false accusation to occur.
I do believe in the 'better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted' theory.
Posted by Murph1908 on 01/15 at 10:28 AM
Oh, and I'd tell the cop and the DA to make sure they have a better case next time before bringing charges.
But that might just be me watching too much Law and Order.
But that might just be me watching too much Law and Order.
Posted by Murph1908 on 01/15 at 10:29 AM
the judge had legal reason to dismiss the charges without saying something that would enflame the public. a case of foot-in-mouth disease i suspect. also i agree with the comment that said if the guy is guilty he now knows everything about the victim and could try to 'get even' with her. poor girl, i feel sorry for her.
Posted by patty in ohio on 01/15 at 04:43 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Category: