Free Despite Murder Confession (Murderer free because evidence is too compelling)

The Daily Telegraph [Sydney, AU] ^ | March 12, 2005 | Unattributed

[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-

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Its pretty safe to say, from reading the article, if one were to commit murder in front of a camera, the videotape would have to be inadmissible.

I wouldn't be surprised if the victim's family has thought of that.

[djf]

Hey, gotta save that prison space for people who commit really, really serious offenses, like smoking in bars and not wearing their seat belts!!!

[SeaBiscuit]

[Tall_Texan]

WTF?

Hey, a judgeship just opened up in Atlanta. Maybe he's hoping to impress one of the idiots there.

[Tunehead54]

Sorry - unbelievably the link looks legit.

---

The end of civilization as the Aussies know it. 'Course we won't be far behind now that we're using international opinion polls to "interpret" our Constitution. :-(

---

Judicial insanity bump!

[sagar]

There ought to be more than the article, at least I hope so. Otherwise, this is just too damn fked up.

[nmh]

"A man who confessed to killing two women walked free from court yesterday when a judge ruled the evidence too damning."

WHAT?

"The evidence was too damning"?

So sentence him.

[aculeus]

NSW Supreme Court, Judge Anthony Whealy

Whealy, whealy stupid.

[Mount Athos]

Wow this is extremely insane.

[TheBattman]

I thought that was the sort of evidence that prosecutors and courts WANTED - evidence that clearly points to guilt.

[Tolik]

wow

totally speechless

so, the victim's family is free to commit the vigilante killing with only one precaution: tape the killing so it will be too damning to convict them too

surrealism

[Krodg]

Whealy, whealy stupid.

I whealy, whealy wish you hadn't done that...

[lowbridge]

bump

[King Prout]

you gotta be kidding me!

[King Prout]

just damn!

[AnnaZ]

What that means, is if a single piece of evidence is so overpowering it would sway a jury from giving a fair trial, it cannot be used.

...and then my brain exploded.

[HangFire]

I'm still not believing what I just read...:-{

[HangFire]

So what if someone killed the murderer, then confessed???

[rockvillem]

Wow - I think this judge missed Evidence 101. Sure the evidence is prejudicial to the defense - because its probative value is devastating! He seems to have missed the first part of the balancing test in their statute (which is similar to that under the US Rules of Evidence). So I guess a confession would be just too "prejudicial" under his logic. Unbelieveable!!!

[TexasAg1996]

Exactyly. The key word is "unfair" prejudice. How is any of this evidence "unfairly" prejudicial.