January 13, 2009
What happens when a victim is too believable?
At the conclusion of an American jury trial, the judge reads the instructions -- CALCRIMS in California -- spelling out the elements of the crime, the rules governing the deliberations process, and how the jurors should approach their task.
Several instructions deal with witness credibility. One tells jurors that they are the only judges of the credibility of witnesses; it is up to them to decide how much credence -- if any -- to give to the testimony of any witness.
It's a point that attorneys hammer home during closing arguments, highlighting moments in the trial where a witness was caught in a lie, then reminding jurors that a witness who has been untruthful in one portion of her testimony may be deemed by the jury to have been untruthful in all areas, her testimony discounted as unreliable -- and tossed out in its entirety.
Thus, a defendant may be convicted, or acquitted, based upon the evidence and testimony, the jurors deciding which witnesses to believe, and which ones to reject, their testimony deemed tainted, biased and untrustworthy.
There's no jury instruction to help the jurors deal with a witness who's too credible; the concept of a witness being "too credible" doesn't even make sense in American jurisprudence.
But not to our English cousins.
A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court - after a judge ruled that the victim was too believable as a witness.
Judge Jamie Tabor praised Denise Dawson as 'honest, utterly decent and brave' when she identified a man as her alleged attacker and gave evidence against him.
But moments later he halted the trial and ordered a not guilty verdict on Liam Perks, 20.
Judge Jamie Tabor, elitist moron.
The judge said Mrs Dawson's good character and compelling evidence could sway the jury, even though she had had only a fleeting glimpse of her attacker.He said: 'Denise Dawson was a particularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest. The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than the facts allow. You cannot be sure she got it right.'
The judge said that her evidence was not enough for a conviction.
Mother-of-two Mrs Dawson, 36, called the decision 'a kick in the teeth'.
She said: 'I was absolutely terrified after I heard he had pleaded not guilty and I would have to go to court to testify. I felt sick when the trial collapsed.
'What more can I do? I positively identified someone from a video ID parade and was prepared to risk everything going to court, but it's still not enough.'
Mrs Dawson, who was offered a £250 bravery award by the judge, said the robbery had left her so terrified she had considered giving up her job.
The instructor was attacked in Southmead, Bristol, in December 2007. She told Bristol Crown Court a gang of yobs surrounded her car and one smashed a window and stole her laptop.
She chased him unsuccessfully, then returned to her car to find another youth rifling through the glove box.
Mrs Dawson, from Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, said she grabbed him and was face-to-face with him for about three seconds before another member of the gang punched her twice, breaking her nose.
Police later organised an identity parade and she picked out Perks. But he denied her claim.
The court heard that Perks, of Henbury, Bristol, had admitted a separate charge of conspiracy to burgle, for his involvement in a gang which stole motorcycles and prestige cars. He is awaiting sentence for that offence.
Yes, we can't allow jurors to be swayed by the apparent honesty, courage and believability of a witness. And so, because the prosecution's witness was so credible -- too credible-- the criminal walks free.
Rue Brittania.
Posted by Mike Lief at January 13, 2009 10:16 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
...now THAT judicial moron, OTOH, needs a good tar-and-feathering. sadly, in britain, tar and feathers are considered to be "offensive weapons" and thus illegal and unavailable.
Posted by: the asset at January 14, 2009 12:11 PM