JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,583
- Reaction score
- 31,002
Correct but a good defence does everything they possibly can to discredit any evidence provided by the prosecution and at the same time paint the defendant in the best possible light with the jury. Dann failed to do this as evidenced by the guilty verdict.
The role of an expert witness is to provide relevant and impartial evidence in their area of expertise. Dann disputed the evidence given by prosecutions ballistics expert, Paul Griffiths, yet chose not to call an expert for the Defence. IMO that's quite odd and it may be that he doesn't believe his Lynn's version.
Counsel's first duty is to the court. If a client tells him that he's innocent, he has to act on that, even if he disbelieves him. It then becomes his duty make the prosecution prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and ensure the client gets a fair trial and the shortest sentence possible. That's what I believe has happened here.
Last edited: