Just to recap what Greg Lynn is appealing...
1. The prosecutor breached procedural fairness by failing to ask Lynn key questions in cross examination, preventing the jury from fully assessing his responses
2. The use of evidence from a police ballistics expert, alleging that its presentation amounted to a serious departure from the standards of a fair trial;
3. Two further grounds relate to the jury’s deliberations, with the defence arguing that the jury followed an impermissible reasoning pathway and that the verdict is therefore unsafe and unsatisfactory; and
4. That the 32-year sentence imposed is manifestly excessive
For me, whilst the appeal judges were scathing of the prosecution in point 1, Greg was given the option for a retrial and also the judge dealt with the prosecution's errors by severely restricting what evidence could be used. What more could have been done? The defendant didn't think it was unfair to continue the trial.
According to Lynn, the ballistics expert (prosecution's witness), proved that his story was plausible so the jury should have had some doubt about his guilt. But what if the jury reached their verdict after rejecting his story or even rejecting this witnesses evidence?
The jury's pathway to reach the unexpected verdict was clear and permissible.
The very experienced judge handed down a suitably harsh sentence.
All my opinion. Appeal should be denied.
Here is an interesting read...
www.ruleoflaw.org.au