Judges is the cra-a-a-ziest peoples.
Posted on 03/12/2005 1:34:40 PM PST by quidnunc
A man who confessed to killing two women walked free from court yesterday when a judge ruled the evidence too damning.
Father-of-two Lyle Simpson admitted being a killer, DNA evidence proved he was at the scene of one murder and he tried to commit suicide a day later.
Yet after three days of legal argument in the NSW Supreme Court, Judge Anthony Whealy ruled some evidence was just too damning and ran the risk of "unfair prejudice'' to the accused.
A married Simpson was accused of murdering his mistress Rhonda Buckley, 51, in September 2001 in Georgetown, Newcastle.
But the family of the victim were devastated by the decision which enabled Simpson, 45, to go free after 16 months in jail awaiting trial.
Ms Buckley's daughter Suzy Westgarth said: "I am bloody angry, so angry."
Outside the court yesterday, Simpson said: "I'm relieved to go home. I've got two disabled kids and I just want to live my life and be left alone by the police," he said.
-snip-
But in court, his defence team led by legal aid solicitor Joanne Harris successfully argued the evidence would unduly prejudice the jury.
A court source said: "The evidence would be too prejudicial for the jury to hear, they would naturaly assume from some of the evidence, that he was guilty.
-snip-
What that means, is if the a single piece of evidence is so overpowering it would sway a jury from giving a fair trial, it cannot be used.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytelegraph.news.com.au ...
I thought that American judges were stupid. This one takes the cake.
What??
Just Damn!
No, it is not April 1st.
This is liberalism of today.
It helps show us why we must fight it at all times.
Well my mouth is sure hanging open.
"Whealy ruled some evidence was just too damning and ran the risk of "unfair prejudice'' to the accused."
I can't believe this judge's rationale.
This isn't a joke? *shiver*
Judges is the cra-a-a-ziest peoples.
This is from the Onion, right?
That's what some of the jurors said about OJ - too much evidence!
From the article
=======
Under Section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 "the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant."
What that means, is if the a single piece of evidence is so overpowering it would sway a jury from giving a fair trial, it cannot be used.
Unfair prejudice is deemed to be "if there is a real risk that the evidence will be misused by the jury in some unfair way".
The Reader's Digest runs a column showcasing the nation's worst judges. If the magazine's editors are notified about this decision then perhaps this judge could make the list. Assuming of course that he is not already on it.
Please tell me this is really scrappleface? Please.
LOL.
There has to be more to this story. Is the guy really free?
We know you can't convict with too little evidence, and apparently the same thing goes if you have too much evidence. I think what you need is a medium amount of evidence, some truth mixed in with some lies, a good concoction of reality and fiction. Yeah, it levels the playing field. Let's bring parity to the judicial system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.