Kamille
Shine bright like a diamond
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 16,781
- Reaction score
- 6,301
To me I think the not calling evidence has more to do with appeal... if u don't present evidence st trial it's now new evidence grounds for appeal...
It's not as easy as one might think to launch an appeal. For one thing, appellate lawyers are not required to be paid for by legal aid. If legal aid deems that the appeal is groundless, they will not provide the funds for the appeal. And then the defendant needs to find a lawyer to work pro bono, either on the actual appeal or on an appeal for funding. So unless the defendant has a lot of money to pay for their own appellate lawyer, or knows a lawyer that will work for them pro bono, it would not make sense to me for their original lawyer to hold back evidence and then produce it as new evidence to try to establish grounds for appeal. Not sure that would even be legal or ethical? Most appeals that are granted are based on trial errors and not new evidence, except for in the cases where advancements in forensics provided an opportunity to exonerate or new evidence truly did arise after the fact.
MOO