Well as these are all unconfirmed attacks which have come out via hearsay then why should a jury here them?
If loads of mud is slung, should unsubstantiated comments, gossip, hearsay or a previous criminal record, even for similar offences all be admitted into evidence? I don't think so.
A person must be judged on the evidence of the case for which he/she was arrested and charged. Nothing out with those parameters should be revealed By all means take previous similar offences into consideration, immediately, prior to sentencing. Some police have a habit of dumping unsolved crimes onto people who have committed similar offences, in their past, to help the clear up rates.
No comments:
Post a Comment