Disclosing priors during a court case?
Snapper
misleading the court when he didn't disclose prior convictions.
I thought that this wasn't done til a verdict was pronounced, ie guilty.
"A Melbourne businessman who failed to stop after knocking down a doting
grandmother was a deceitful man who misled the court by not disclosing 29
previous convictions, a judge has said."
Rest of the article here:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23708388-2862,00.html
TomTom
Snapper <snap...@y7mail.com> typed:
Apparently, his lawyer told the court, in the context of making a submission
on penalty, that he had no prior convictions. This obviously amounted to
misleading the court.
It is correct that the prosecution cannot usually disclose prior convictions
until the verdict is pronounced. Here, it was the defence claiming no
priors.
Do you feel any sympathy for this goose?
Snapper
> Apparently, his lawyer told the court, in the context of making a submission
> on penalty, that he had no prior convictions. This obviously amounted to
> misleading the court.
Should he have simply shut up about his somewhat chequered past, perhaps? And
this would not have become an issu?
> Do you feel any sympathy for this goose?
Not a bit. I'm just quering the point of law in the matter of raising priors
during a court case, is all.
TomTom
Snapper <snap...@y7mail.com> typed:
> TomTom wrote...
>
>> Apparently, his lawyer told the court, in the context of making a
>> submission on penalty, that he had no prior convictions. This
>> obviously amounted to misleading the court.
>
> Should he have simply shut up about his somewhat chequered past,
> perhaps? And this would not have become an issu?
With the benefit of hindsight, of course! But the offences were serious,
and he was presumably looking to avoid prison. My guess is that people like
this man are too blind too their own failings to judge the risk of being
found out correctly. It's called hubris. (I don't exclude myself from
that.)
>> Do you feel any sympathy for this goose?
>
> Not a bit. I'm just quering the point of law in the matter of raising
> priors during a court case, is all.
The point of law has the purpose of preventing the prosecution raising
priors during the trial. It would suggest that the accused is the sort of
person who does such things. The accused is not on trial because of his or
her character, but because of the claim that they committed the offence. If
they are found to have committed the offence, then priors are relevant to
sentence.
In some cases, the accused raises an issue of their good character, or of
prosecution witnesses bad character, during the trial. Priors can sometimes
be relevant then. A highly technical area.