1 posted on
03/12/2005 1:34:40 PM PST by
quidnunc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: quidnunc
I thought that American judges were stupid. This one takes the cake.
2 posted on
03/12/2005 1:35:57 PM PST by
Brilliant
To: quidnunc
3 posted on
03/12/2005 1:36:25 PM PST by
Crazieman
(Islam. Religion of peace, and they'll kill you to prove it.)
To: quidnunc
Sometimes you just get rendered speechless by this crud
4 posted on
03/12/2005 1:37:17 PM PST by
skaterboy
(Miss my PB)
To: mhking
5 posted on
03/12/2005 1:39:24 PM PST by
Crazieman
(Islam. Religion of peace, and they'll kill you to prove it.)
To: aculeus; general_re; Poohbah; BlueLancer; hellinahandcart; Constitution Day
6 posted on
03/12/2005 1:41:01 PM PST by
dighton
To: quidnunc
This is liberalism of today.
It helps show us why we must fight it at all times.
To: quidnunc
Speechless.
8 posted on
03/12/2005 1:45:44 PM PST by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: quidnunc
"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.
To: quidnunc
This isn't a joke? *shiver*
11 posted on
03/12/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by
thoughtomator
(I believe in the power of free markets to do good)
To: quidnunc
Judges is the cra-a-a-ziest peoples.
12 posted on
03/12/2005 1:47:18 PM PST by
Maceman
(Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
To: quidnunc
This is from the Onion, right?
To: quidnunc
That's what some of the jurors said about OJ - too much evidence!
To: quidnunc
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".
I guess this is what is coming for us....
To: quidnunc
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.
To: quidnunc
Please tell me this is really scrappleface? Please.
17 posted on
03/12/2005 1:50:47 PM PST by
Eagles6
(Dig deeper, more ammo.)
To: quidnunc
There has to be more to this story. Is the guy really free?
To: quidnunc
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.
20 posted on
03/12/2005 1:52:31 PM PST by
speedy
To: quidnunc
My own belief is that they will end up convicting George W. Bush for this crime. I believe there is absolutely no evidence to link him to the crime -- so he can be convicted without even going through a trial.
Australia is backwards land, right?
22 posted on
03/12/2005 1:53:18 PM PST by
ClearCase_guy
(The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
To: quidnunc
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.
24 posted on
03/12/2005 1:54:36 PM PST by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: quidnunc
When did they legalize LSD in NSW or is it reserved just for Judges?
25 posted on
03/12/2005 1:56:06 PM PST by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopeckne is walking around free)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson