Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
(Deleted)
No legitimate Crown prosecutor would propose on day 2 of a 1st degree murder trial to have a day of family tributes for the victims if he was actually conducting a trial to convict someone and sentence them to life.
No competent defence counsel could even fathom agreeing to such a step if he was not already assured no convictions were being sought.
As for the judge, I am struggling to understand how he permitted it to happen even though it was jointly proposed by the lawyers. Having allowed massively prejudicial and completely invalid information put before him he could not legitimately convict the accused now and have the proceeding withstand appellate scrutiny.
(More Deleted)
|
MBates,
I agree with the above, its clear the Crown conceded even before the opening statements.
I also found it odd how the press reported on the defence counsel being "near to tears", not to say anything bad about him, but it just doesn't sit right that the lead story one day is the defence lawyer was near crying.
However, the Crown hires three experts and they all come back with consistent (though not the same) diagnoses. And we know the Crown is obligated to seek the truth, not to seek a conviction.
So what is the Crown to do here? I presume you're going to say, cross-examine the hell out of those experts, but you still need the back-up of at least one expert to provide an alternative diagnosis, don't you? Should the Crown have gone shopping for an out country expert? Doesn't that look bad by itself?