Argh!

Dammit, these Criminal Appeals readings are killing me.

WHY are Judges so damn LONG WINDED! I don't mind them being long winded while they are making their point because it's hard to clearly explain things that are difficult to conceptualise without a lot of words. But when they are making the same point over and over and over and over again....ENOUGH!

I have struggled through about 8 pages on fresh evidence that all say the same damn thing.

The gist is this:

1. The appellate court can overturn a conviction on the basis that the absence of some piece of evidence at trial lead to a miscarriage of justice.

2. If the appellant is seeking an acquittal: the new evidence has to be so cogent that the Court thinks the appellant is either innocent, or has a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If this is the case, whether the evidence is fresh or not, the guilty verdict will be quashed and the appellant will go on his merry way.

3. If the appellant is seeking a new trial, OR, where the evidence isn't sufficiently cogent to fall into point 2, a new trial will be ordered where (a) the evidence is FRESH, (b) the evidence is credible (i.e. could be accepted by a reasonable jury as being true), and (c) this evidence would have been likely to cause a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Okay, I think that's clearer in my mind now! Thanks David Kirby! =)

(I know that you were all DYING to know that. So was I. No, really.)
(Did sarcasm on the net work that time??)