The video excerpt was ruled admissible as "substantive evidence" by Ontario Superior Court Judge Thomas Heeney after prosecutors successfully made what's called a "K.G.B." application.
The letters refer to the initials of a youth who was acquitted of stabbing to death a man after the witnesses against him, his friends, at trial recanted the incriminating statements they first had given police.
Because the common law rule then was that such statements, if recanted, were hearsay and couldn't be used as evidence, the trial judge (who found the witnesses had lied to him) with great reluctance acquitted K.G.B., a decision upheld at the Ontario Court of Appeal.
But in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada on a Crown appeal ordered a new trial and agreed the old rule should be changed. Now, so long as a judge finds they are necessary and reliable, such "prior inconsistent statements" are evidence as good, or bad, as testimony given in court.
Heeney told the jurors just that on Wednesday, before they watched the videotape of McClintic's confession: They can accept everything she said in that interview, some of it, or none of it, just "as you may with her oral testimony."
Read more:
http://www.canada.com/news/Blatchfo...ri+slaughter/6338990/story.html#ixzz1pxsyPdMQ