UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #16

[Tricia]

WE ARE SO VERY CLOSE. WE NEED 350 DOLLARS IN DONATIONS TO REACH OUR GOAL TO KEEP WEBSLEUTHS GOING.
Every month for about 228 months (that is 19 years) I have gladly paid the bills. Rarely over the 19 years have I asked for your help. THANK YOU to all who have donated. I will post an announcement and stop accepting donations when we reach our goal!
Please use PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
If the PayPal link does not work for you go to www.paypal.com and put in the email [email protected] and you can send a donation that way.
Venmo name is Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

(PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS DONATIONS ON THIS THREAD. CLICK HERE FOR DISCUSSION AND MORE INFORMATION)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Tricia

 

[esther43]

Can you explain that?

No but I know a man who can

"Choosing not to give evidence - the adverse inference

In most cases, if the defendant does not give evidence the jury will be told by the judge that they are entitled to hold this against them (an adverse inference) when they consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence charged.

In summing-up the case to the jury, the judge will say that if the jury conclude that the defendant did not give evidence because they had no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to cross-examination, this can provide some support for the prosecution case, although it cannot be used as the only or main reason for finding a defendant guilty. "

Witness Evidence and Questioning — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand witness evidence and questioning at trial, including calling witnesses, agreed evidence and experts. Full guidance at Defence-Barrister.co.uk.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

No but I know a man who can

"Choosing not to give evidence - the adverse inference

In most cases, if the defendant does not give evidence the jury will be told by the judge that they are entitled to hold this against them (an adverse inference) when they consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence charged.

In summing-up the case to the jury, the judge will say that if the jury conclude that the defendant did not give evidence because they had no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to cross-examination, this can provide some support for the prosecution case, although it cannot be used as the only or main reason for finding a defendant guilty. "

Witness Evidence and Questioning — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand witness evidence and questioning at trial, including calling witnesses, agreed evidence and experts. Full guidance at Defence-Barrister.co.uk.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

Esther, I read that link and I don't understand about the defendant having to answer 'all proper questions put to them'. Do you know how this questioning would take place?

'Although defendants can choose not to enter the witness box to give evidence, if they decide to do so, then they must answer all proper questions put to them. Failure to do can usually be held against them by the jury/magistrates when considering their verdict, as can refusal to give evidence at all.'

 

[esther43]

Waver* not a legal expert but does this source answer your question?

The adverse inference warning

The defendant must be warned about an adverse inference before the defence case starts in order to ensure that the consequences of not giving evidence are clear. The same applies if the defendant gives evidence but chooses not to answer some or all questions put to them.

The Criminal Procedure Rules, Part 25.9(2)(f) set out the procedure in this way:

“(f) … at the end of the prosecution evidence, the court must ask whether the defendant intends to give evidence in person and, if the answer is ‘no’, then the court must satisfy itself that there has been explained to the defendant, in terms the defendant can understand (with help, if necessary)— (i) the right to give evidence in person, and (ii) that if the defendant does not give evidence in person, or refuses to answer a question while giving evidence, the court may draw such inferences as seem proper.”

— Criminal Procedure Rules, Part 25.9(2)(f). See also s.35(2) Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Crown Court Trial - Defence Case — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand the Crown Court defence case, including presentation, defence statements and giving evidence. Visit Defence-Barrister.co.uk for detailed guidance.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

 

[ColourPurple]

Esther, I read that link and I don't understand about the defendant having to answer 'all proper questions put to them'. Do you know how this questioning would take place?

'Although defendants can choose not to enter the witness box to give evidence, if they decide to do so, then they must answer all proper questions put to them. Failure to do can usually be held against them by the jury/magistrates when considering their verdict, as can refusal to give evidence at all.'

The "if they decide to do so" is referring to if they decide to enter the witness box, so the questions would just be asked in the normal way, in court. If they don't decide to enter the witness box they don't have to answer anything in court.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That relates to not

No but I know a man who can

"Choosing not to give evidence - the adverse inference

In most cases, if the defendant does not give evidence the jury will be told by the judge that they are entitled to hold this against them (an adverse inference) when they consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence charged.

In summing-up the case to the jury, the judge will say that if the jury conclude that the defendant did not give evidence because they had no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to cross-examination, this can provide some support for the prosecution case, although it cannot be used as the only or main reason for finding a defendant guilty. "

Witness Evidence and Questioning — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand witness evidence and questioning at trial, including calling witnesses, agreed evidence and experts. Full guidance at Defence-Barrister.co.uk.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

That relates to refusing to answer once in the witness box. Deciding not to give evidence in your own defence cannot be held against you. This is what you have legal representation for.

 

[Tortoise]

That relates to not
That relates to refusing to answer once in the witness box. Deciding not to give evidence in your own defence cannot be held against you. This is what you have legal representation for.

No, it specifically refers to choosing not to give evidence.

35 Effect of accused’s silence at trial.​

(1)At the trial of any person F1. . . for an offence, subsections (2) and (3) below apply unless—

(a)the accused’s guilt is not in issue; or

(b)it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence;

but subsection (2) below does not apply if, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, his legal representative informs the court that the accused will give evidence or, where he is unrepresented, the court ascertains from him that he will give evidence.

(2)Where this subsection applies, the court shall, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, satisfy itself (in the case of proceedings on indictment [F2with a jury] , in the presence of the jury) that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can, if he wishes, give evidence and that, if he chooses not to give evidence, or having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any question, it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.

(3)Where this subsection applies, the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

 

[ColourPurple]

That relates to not
That relates to refusing to answer once in the witness box. Deciding not to give evidence in your own defence cannot be held against you. This is what you have legal representation for.

It applies to both:


'Although defendants can choose not to enter the witness box to give evidence, if they decide to do so, then they must answer all proper questions put to them. Failure to do can usually be held against them by the jury/magistrates when considering their verdict, as can refusal to give evidence at all.'

Witness Evidence and Questioning — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand witness evidence and questioning at trial, including calling witnesses, agreed evidence and experts. Full guidance at Defence-Barrister.co.uk.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

The "if they decide to do so" is referring to if they decide to enter the witness box, so the questions would just be asked in the normal way, in court. If they don't decide to enter the witness box they don't have to answer anything in court.

Of course, sorry, I totally misread 'if they choose to do so' to mean choose not to enter the witness box! Numpty.

 

[ColourPurple]

Of course, sorry, I totally misread 'if they choose to do so' to mean choose not to enter the witness box! Numpty.

It's another one that could've been worded better tbf

 

[esther43]

It applies to both:


'Although defendants can choose not to enter the witness box to give evidence, if they decide to do so, then they must answer all proper questions put to them. Failure to do can usually be held against them by the jury/magistrates when considering their verdict, as can refusal to give evidence at all.'

Witness Evidence and Questioning — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand witness evidence and questioning at trial, including calling witnesses, agreed evidence and experts. Full guidance at Defence-Barrister.co.uk.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

It will be interesting to see if Myers has applied for her to be excused from 'adverse inference' on the grounds of mental health. And I guess we will find out next week whether she plans to take the stand or not.

 

[ColourPurple]

It will be interesting to see if Myers has applied for her to be excused from 'adverse inference' on the grounds of mental health. And I guess we will find out next week whether she plans to take the stand or not.

I wonder. I hope she takes the stand but suspect she wont.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I wonder. I hope she takes the stand but suspect she wont.

I'd really like to see her do it bit I'd be staggered if she did!

 

[esther43]

I'd really like to see her do it bit I'd be staggered if she did!

I think whether she will take the stand or not will be dependent on what the defence has got up its sleeve.
If the defence is strong with a full array of medical experts and character witnesses then as a juror, I would expect her to take the stand.
This because in a situation where there's two equally compelling arguments then 'personal presentation ' could strengthen the defence position.

If the defence was weak and the prosecution was strong and LL exercised her right to be silent, I'd be taking that in a different way, perhaps thinking that she didn't want to be caught out in cross examination so remained silent for that reason.

 

[Becky53]

Mails podcast had landed.

This week, Caroline and Kim Pilling, standing in for Liz, go over what the court heard about the final baby in this case, Baby Q. He was a baby boy who was considered to be stable, until one morning when he collapsed just after Lucy Letby had left the nursery he was in.

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 27: Baby Q “I was worried about what was happening on our unit.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think whether she will take the stand or not will be dependent on what the defence has got up its sleeve.
If the defence is strong with a full array of medical experts and character witnesses then as a juror, I would expect her to take the stand.
This because in a situation where there's two equally compelling arguments then 'personal presentation ' could strengthen the defence position.

If the defence was weak and the prosecution was strong and LL exercised her right to be silent, I'd be taking that in a different way, perhaps thinking that she didn't want to be caught out in cross examination so remained silent for that reason.

I'd have thought the opposite, tbh. If your defence guy has presented a tight case for you that has totally undermined that of the Prosecution then why give evidence and risk being rinsed by them?

 

[esther43]

Dbm

 

[esther43]

I'd have thought the opposite, tbh. If your defence guy has presented a tight case for you that has totally undermined that of the Prosecution then why give evidence and risk being rinsed by them?

 

[esther43]

Because, unless exemption is sought, the jury will invariably be invited by the judge to consider whether they think that it is a bad thing or not and when you are on a jury and the judge is actively advising you to take that into account, then that is what a juror is likely to do. So that is then a risk to the defence case to not have the defendant give evidence.
One of the principles of procedural justice as I understand it is equality. Meaning that, in the UK no matter how much money you have and how many hot shot lawyers you hire, you can not 'buy' your way out of incarceration. You can't buy bail on serious offences and you can not pay a lawyer to speak on your behalf and expect that to be ' 'enough' or adequate in the eyes of the law.
If you could, then this would mean that people with more money would stand less chance of incarceration and this would present issues of inequality.

 

[Dotta]

I don't think Defence will expose LL to Prosecution questioning - with totally unpredicted questions.

Besides, what can she really say what was not said during Police questioning?

Only if she knows things not covered in the trial, like something that causes absolute "reasonable doubt".
But I don't think so.

JMO