Some years ago, I was empanelled as a juror in a theft trial under English law. The defendant chose to give evidence in his defence (and was the only witness for the defence). By any reasonable measure, the story he gave in explanation for his fingerprints being at the scene of the crime was far-fetched and not remotely believable.
During jury deliberation, some jurors argued that since the defendant didn't need to establish his innocence, it was irrelevant that his testimony was highly incredible. I argued otherwise: that he had given evidence and like that of any other witness, his evidence needed to be weighed objectively.
Can someone knowledgeable in this field jump in here?
During jury deliberation, some jurors argued that since the defendant didn't need to establish his innocence, it was irrelevant that his testimony was highly incredible. I argued otherwise: that he had given evidence and like that of any other witness, his evidence needed to be weighed objectively.
Can someone knowledgeable in this field jump in here?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2wxnncb
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire