quote:

Originally posted by Dupz - People being made to go through trial multiple times. Remember, court trials are not much fun for anyone.. not the defendant (who might very well be innocent), nor the plaintiff and/or their families.

That's a very valid point, and it's one I think needs to be considered in itself. What I mean is that in the case of rape for example, even a mistrial means the victim needs to go through the trauma again and again. i think it should be possible for evidence in such cases being giving as a video recorded file for the jury to see, as opposed to the victim having to regive their testemony.I don't understand why something like that has not been changed as it has been discussed many times over many years. The only real problem arrises when questions that were not previously asked are thought of I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by sasslife As long as there is new evidence which is then cleared by a judge as "material" i dont hve a problem with it at all..

I think that's the key. If the prosecution can present solid material evidence, which was unavailable during the first trial, to a judge in a preliminary hearing and it is determined that this evidence has a strong chance of leading to a conviction, then I don't see anything wrong with this law so long as appropriate safeguards are in place. I think that it should only apply to the most serious of crimes (rape, murder etc.) to avoid seeing the courts clogged up with capricious or opportunistic retrials and that only evidence of the most incontrovertable sort (i.e. DNA evidence etc.) should be grounds for a retrial.

If this is the manner in which it is eventually implemented then it should only affect a very small number of dismissed cases and even then only when there is a high likelihood that the defendant can be proven guilty. To this extent (and it pains me as a civil libertarian to say this) I think I can cautiously support this legislation.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/