T W A U ... The Chase....todays...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
What Happens If A Prosecution Witness Lies In Court
Basically I was found guilty yesterday of a crime I did not commit. If I can prove the prosecution witness swore an oath on the bible and lied on two occasion, what can be done, will they be charged with perjury and what happens to the court case? I am due to be sentenced in 1 months time for this crime
Answers
You may be better talking this through with your barrister rather than thinking aloud on here so much. You have had the view of barrister on here
18:23 Sun 26th Jan 2014
Jason please don't mistake what you think you know for proof.
You say you have proof that things happened, however you don't unless you can back it up with recordings and paperwork.
If your witnesses did not turn up to your trial, that is not the court's fault, and if your witnesses were not there at the time of the alleged offence, they wouldn't be much good anyway.
Listen to Fred. Fred gives sound advice as a rule.
You say you have proof that things happened, however you don't unless you can back it up with recordings and paperwork.
If your witnesses did not turn up to your trial, that is not the court's fault, and if your witnesses were not there at the time of the alleged offence, they wouldn't be much good anyway.
Listen to Fred. Fred gives sound advice as a rule.
jason, your barrister was right; it is potentially a double-edged sword. If they didn't hear the noise themselves, it is hearsay, and should not have been adduced. If it got in, the judge would have told the jury that it was not evidence and should be disregarded. So would counsel.
That being so, it being hearsay, it suggests that the witnesses are desperately trying to make the case worse, and , as such, merits strong comment. If it were not hearsay, it is something not to dwell on, because it suggests malice on your part and fits the alleged racial abuse. That could be said of hearsay too, but played right , the jury will be told to ignore it. And you need not be asked about it.
That being so, it being hearsay, it suggests that the witnesses are desperately trying to make the case worse, and , as such, merits strong comment. If it were not hearsay, it is something not to dwell on, because it suggests malice on your part and fits the alleged racial abuse. That could be said of hearsay too, but played right , the jury will be told to ignore it. And you need not be asked about it.
it has just come to light that they may have lied a 3rd time. They told the jury that they moved from the address because of the harassment, but I have been told and this is not actual fact yet that they may have moved because the tenancy expired or and they was kicked out for complaints from 2 residents in the block.
If I can prove they lied on 3 occasions on the bible
If I can prove they lied on 3 occasions on the bible
I also would like to talk of my disgust that due to the court room heating not working. and with me being placed in a room that can only be described as fridge temperature, due to this I am now ill and have a pretty bad cold and chest infection. I feel my rights as a human have been affected. I probably cannot do anything but I just thought I would put that out there.
am I not supposed to be properly treated?
am I not supposed to be properly treated?
during my cross examining I was ill. and because of this I was not able to defend myself, I also suffer from depression and anxiety and this was aggravated by the fact that it was to cold in there and I got ill. I got annoyed during my cross examine and that is because the court room made me ill thus worsening my current depression. I was treated like a peace of meat basically left in a cold room for 3 days
does this breach my rights as a human? am I not supposed to be treated fairly? I feel I was not but hey I sound like im clutching at straws now, but this is how I feel. My depression has worsened since the hearing, not just because of the fact i'm innocent but also I feel I was not treated correctly or fairly
ok, I suppose I have tried every avenue, ill wait for other comments but I just wanted to put that out there. I will prove them to be liars tho. They may have lied on 3 separate occasions. Just need to prove it now.
Ok i'm off to play a bit of fifa try take my mind of things for and hour or so. Never in my days did I ever think that I would or could go to prison an innocent man.
I really do appreciate you time all that have replied :)
Ok i'm off to play a bit of fifa try take my mind of things for and hour or so. Never in my days did I ever think that I would or could go to prison an innocent man.
I really do appreciate you time all that have replied :)
Honestly Jay - having a runny nose or a particular itch on the day of the court is irrelevant to whether you did X on the day specified.
Having you accusers move because the lease ran out rather than harassment may be irrelevant. If I were at the end of a lease and had neighbour trouble I might well let it run and then move - cheaper and doesnt need Landlord's permission.
It sounds as tho the jury was reasonably convinced that you did the things you were accused of - and that means that you would be wasting money to appeal.
Having you accusers move because the lease ran out rather than harassment may be irrelevant. If I were at the end of a lease and had neighbour trouble I might well let it run and then move - cheaper and doesnt need Landlord's permission.
It sounds as tho the jury was reasonably convinced that you did the things you were accused of - and that means that you would be wasting money to appeal.
IN doing a bit of reading over a case which is meant to have killed a Lord Chancellor (Cottenham) called Dimes v Grand Union Canal, I cam across this:
in Mattu v Univ Hosp of Cov:
Upon investigation, it can sometimes emerge that what appeared to be a dishonest answer does not in fact amount to the offence of perjury.
83 A striking example of this, to which reference was made in argument, was that of Mr Tommy Docherty. He had admitted in cross-examination in the course of a libel action that he had told a “pack of lies”. At his subsequent trial for perjury the judge, in summing up, said that the witness box could be the loneliest place in the world and that it was possible, under “fierce” cross-examination, based on false instructions, to make admissions without really knowing what one was saying. Mr Docherty told the jury that he had been so terrified that he would give any answer to get out of the witness box. He was duly acquitted on two counts of perjury. (This case is reported as a news item on page 4 of The Times for 21 October 1981 .)
84 That is, of course, an extreme example but it illustrates how important it can be to recognise a charge of perjury as a distinct matter requiring investigation on its own terms.
You may think it supports .... ha! perjury ! all I need is evidence
I think it means that judges are pretty laid back about untrue answers in the heat of battle. You will note he says the two things are separate
in Mattu v Univ Hosp of Cov:
Upon investigation, it can sometimes emerge that what appeared to be a dishonest answer does not in fact amount to the offence of perjury.
83 A striking example of this, to which reference was made in argument, was that of Mr Tommy Docherty. He had admitted in cross-examination in the course of a libel action that he had told a “pack of lies”. At his subsequent trial for perjury the judge, in summing up, said that the witness box could be the loneliest place in the world and that it was possible, under “fierce” cross-examination, based on false instructions, to make admissions without really knowing what one was saying. Mr Docherty told the jury that he had been so terrified that he would give any answer to get out of the witness box. He was duly acquitted on two counts of perjury. (This case is reported as a news item on page 4 of The Times for 21 October 1981 .)
84 That is, of course, an extreme example but it illustrates how important it can be to recognise a charge of perjury as a distinct matter requiring investigation on its own terms.
You may think it supports .... ha! perjury ! all I need is evidence
I think it means that judges are pretty laid back about untrue answers in the heat of battle. You will note he says the two things are separate
I would like to thank everyone who replied. I really do appreciate your time.
It has helped me a great deal, and has cheered me up thru this difficult time.
Just a little update
I have been busy knocking on doors in my block, I now have 5 witnesses, one lives opposite to where the polish family lived, all are prepared to defend me, I plan on asking the whole block and hopefully doubling that number,
obviously these witnesses where no needed before the trial as the spy hole incident was dropped on me on the day?
thankyou so much everyone:)
ps how long does this question stay open for on this site? can I keep on updating?
It has helped me a great deal, and has cheered me up thru this difficult time.
Just a little update
I have been busy knocking on doors in my block, I now have 5 witnesses, one lives opposite to where the polish family lived, all are prepared to defend me, I plan on asking the whole block and hopefully doubling that number,
obviously these witnesses where no needed before the trial as the spy hole incident was dropped on me on the day?
thankyou so much everyone:)
ps how long does this question stay open for on this site? can I keep on updating?
peter pedant
I completely understand what you say, but being innocent I will try everything in my power to prove that. I will go to the local papers my local MP, i have alot of support on facebook. Friends and family. I will prove my innocence. This could happen to anyone and most people I have spoken to are shocked that an innocent man could go to prison and lose his flat over someone's word/lie. I think the consensus is that this could happen to anyone right?
I have more questions but ill give time for reply's first. Im getting ahead of myself slightly...
I completely understand what you say, but being innocent I will try everything in my power to prove that. I will go to the local papers my local MP, i have alot of support on facebook. Friends and family. I will prove my innocence. This could happen to anyone and most people I have spoken to are shocked that an innocent man could go to prison and lose his flat over someone's word/lie. I think the consensus is that this could happen to anyone right?
I have more questions but ill give time for reply's first. Im getting ahead of myself slightly...
even there witness said he never heard me shout anything racial. Although he did say he heard me swear on 2 occasions, this is easily explainable as everyone swears at some point and the flats are not very well insulated.
Spoke to the council and they agree that there is a problem. they are sending out a surveyer
Spoke to the council and they agree that there is a problem. they are sending out a surveyer
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.