Search results

I have no idea what this is about, but I'm pretty sure it will be dealt with in short order by Justice Code.

I've read enough of your posts on here to gain an impression of you, and I believe that you would in fact have a problem convicting without enough evidence, but I think you'd figure out a way to convince yourself that in fact there was sufficient evidence, and I suspect that is exactly what is...

You may well be correct, but never underestimate the power of a jury to come to the correct decision notwithstanding what the law may say.

I don't think there is any question that women are treated more leniently in our justice system than men are and that just like in life, good looking people are treated more leniently than those who are not as good looking at all phases of the process.

I'd be very surprised if that wouldn't come out some time during heated discussions.

Technically this is not true because what is said in closing arguments is not evidence but this situation is unique because DM is defending himself and I can fully understand them looking at his slip up even though technically I isn't admissible against him. That's one reason why jury...

I agree with you that criminal law is a minefield of ethical issues that defence lawyers deal with on a daily basis and most people are totally unaware of. Dealing with a couple of your points: Defence lawyers can never 'know' that their clients are guilty. That is something that judge must...

There wouldn't be much point in excluding evidence that would not affect the outcome. It may make you feel a little less sick to realize that if Crown evidence is excluded and it affects the outcome the Crown can always appeal the verdict if they feel that the evidence should have been admitted.

It's easy to denounce our justice system and it certainly isn't without flaws, but I defy you to point to one in existence which is flawless. The wealthy have always enjoyed the benefits of their justice systems and guess what, they always will. At least our does occasionally convict the...

I would certainly assume so.

Likely some clarifications.

It's very early for a question.

Fair enough, apparently my faith in humanity was once again unwarranted.

I thought that SS's father-in-law (I forget his name) went above and beyond and he certainly broke the code of silence that everyone else working for DM seemed so willing to keep.

My impression is that Justice Code skillfully excluded evidence that he thought could potentially result in a successful appeal while at the same time making sure that he allowed enough in to ensure that DM and MS will spend the rest of their lives in the big house. It's a real tight rope that...

Never leave a stone unturned, even if you've already tried to turn it over once before and failed......

If it is then everything that's been posted about 'what the jury didn't hear' is verboten too.

The jury is out and everything that happened in Court is now fair game and no longer subject to a publication ban unless it was specifically banned by the judge as also being banned after the jury was out.

He's the first what the jury didn't hear article. http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ten-things-jurors-at-the-laura-babcock-trial-did-not-hear