Legal question for you non-lawyers

[grumbler]

I'm confused what BB wants out of this. He has listed a set of facts. Assuming these facts are true then the accused should be found guilty. Surely asking us which of these facts are admissible is asking the wrong people. I'm pretty sure the judge decides these things.

My suspicion is that he wants to start a discussion.  Weird, I know.  What will probably shock you is that, other than you, there are probably only a few people here at languish that post because they want something out of Languish other than amusement.  You are confused because you misunderstand the nature of the internet.

[Barrister]

As I am a Mex-i-can't and too lazy to start an actual thread, just want to wish Beeb a Happy Birthday.

And I thought you guys didn't care.

Here's what I go for a present:

[CountDeMoney]

Didn't know General Dynamics had a menswear line.

[Barrister]

I'm confused what BB wants out of this. He has listed a set of facts. Assuming these facts are true then the accused should be found guilty. Surely asking us which of these facts are admissible is asking the wrong people. I'm pretty sure the judge decides these things.

Barring a good explanation for why the accused was in the house, a lecherous identical twin or suspicion that the home owner was falsely reporting the burglary I think it is reasonable to conclude that the accused did it.

I'm certainly not asking for any analysis about admissibility - no one here besides me is really qualified to answer that question.

But it is a circumstantial case, and circumstantial evidence is in the eye of the beholder.  So I thought it would be interesting to see what various lay people thought.

I was always going to prosecute this fellow.  But as I mentioned before, depending on the strength of my case I will give him a resolution offer that is more or less generous.  A weaker case means a more generous offer, and a strong case means a less generous offer.

Plus, you know, I thought it might spark an interesting discussion.

[CountDeMoney]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

[HVC]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

if only he could find jesus he'd be a better person

[Malthus]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

if only he could find jesus he'd be a better person

[Capetan Mihali]

Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?

[crazy canuck]

Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?

If he doesnt take the stand then the presumption kicks in.  If he does take the stand BB thinks he can put the priors into evidence.

[Capetan Mihali]

Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?

If he doesnt take the stand then the presumption kicks in.  If he does take the stand BB thinks he can put the priors into evidence.

He's not going to take the stand, and the priors would probably be too prejudicial anyways.  Am I supposed to be a Canadian juror or a juror in my home country?  American jurors aren't supposed to draw inferences from the defendant choosing not to testify (even if they really do all the time).

EDIT: Hmm, I guess that evidence=proof presumption does change things.

[Barrister]

Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?

If he doesnt take the stand then the presumption kicks in.  If he does take the stand BB thinks he can put the priors into evidence.

Actually - if it is a jury election his criminal record will certainly be edited so as to minimize any prejudice.  It would simply be much too prejudicial.  But I'll still be able to put some amount of his record to him.

Mihali - Canadian jurors are also cautioned not to draw any inference from the accused not testifying.

It's a case that would be really difficult to reduce to a lesser included.  I mean theft is a lesser included, but factually all we have on him is the fact he entered - we have to rely on a legal presumption for the theft.  In Canada though we don't have sentencing guidelines, and B&E dwelling house can attract a huge range of sentences, so I think I just take the inevitable uncertainty into account on sentence.

[Viking]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

How am I being a douchbag?

[Viking]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

if only he could find jesus he'd be a better person

I found Jesus, but I don't know what a Chilean Restraunteur has to do with me being or not being a douchbag.

[HVC]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

How am I being a douchbag?

Not knowing is the biggest sign

[Viking]

Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.

How am I being a douchbag?

Not knowing is the biggest sign

That would make everybody a douchbag, both those who think they are and those who think they are not.