Witness not giving evidence

bajer101

Now that Dave Mahon has been found guilty of the manslaughter of Dean Fitzpatrick I assume that is ok to talk about the case. One thing that struck me was that one of people who was present that night did not give evidence, and in summing up the Judge instructed the jury "not to speculate about". This seems very strange to me. Mr. Mahon did not take the stand, and I can understand his right to refuse to do so, but I cannot understand how/why a first hand witness who would have had integral evidence was not called upon. Can any of the legal experts here shed some light on this?

Pro Hoc Vice

bajer101 wrote: »

Now that Dave Mahon has been found guilty of the manslaughter of Dean Fitzpatrick I assume that is ok to talk about the case. One thing that struck me was that one of people who was present that night did not give evidence, and in summing up the Judge instructed the jury "not to speculate about". This seems very strange to me. Mr. Mahon did not take the stand, and I can understand his right to refuse to do so, but I cannot understand how/why a first hand witness who would have had integral evidence was not called upon. Can any of the legal experts here shed some light on this?

Was not really following it but who was not called?

bajer101

Dave Mahon had two friends with him in his apartment on the night of the killing. "There were two witnesses present: Mahon’s friends, Karl O’Toole and John McCormack.". John McCormack did not give any evidence. Karl O'Toole gave evidence and described how he drove Mr. Mahon away from the scene and that he didn't see the knife that was used until Mr. Mahon arrived back in the apartment with the knife following the stabbing. The knife was taken from a knife block in Mr. Mahon's kitchen. Mr. Mahon said that Mr. Fitzpatrick took it from the block and that he (Mahon), then took it from him.

I don't understand why the prosecution wouldn't have called Mr. McCormack and at least asked him, "Did you see Mr. Fitzpatrick taking the knife from the block?" I suppose what I am getting at is; is it possible that a witness just refuses to answer questions in Garda interviews and therefore doesn't get called?

Pro Hoc Vice

bajer101 wrote: »

Dave Mahon had two friends with him in his apartment on the night of the killing. "There were two witnesses present: Mahon’s friends, Karl O’Toole and John McCormack.". John McCormack did not give any evidence. Karl O'Toole gave evidence and described how he drove Mr. Mahon away from the scene and that he didn't see the knife that was used until Mr. Mahon arrived back in the apartment with the knife following the stabbing. The knife was taken from a knife block in Mr. Mahon's kitchen. Mr. Mahon said that Mr. Fitzpatrick took it from the block and that he (Mahon), then took it from him.

I don't understand why the prosecution wouldn't have called Mr. McCormack and at least asked him, "Did you see Mr. Fitzpatrick taking the knife from the block?" I suppose what I am getting at is; is it possible that a witness just refuses to answer questions in Garda interviews and therefore doesn't get called?

The trial heard that Mr McCormack was in Mr Mahon’s apartment that night and had walked out onto the landing with the deceased before the incident.

He may not have seen anything and said as much to AGS.

bajer101

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The trial heard that Mr McCormack was in Mr Mahon’s apartment that night and had walked out onto the landing with the deceased before the incident.

He may not have seen anything and said as much to AGS.

But Mahon alleged that Fitzpatrick took the knife from the block in the kitchen and that Mahon wrestled it from him and put it in his back pocket. This allegedly happened before McCormack walked Fitzpatrick out. Why wouldn't the prosecution put McCormack on the stand and ask him if he witnessed this? I just don't get how someone can be killed and there are two separate witnesses and one of them is not put on the stand to even answer the most simple of questions about events! Can witnesses refuse to testify?

Pro Hoc Vice

bajer101 wrote: »

But Mahon alleged that Fitzpatrick took the knife from the block in the kitchen and that Mahon wrestled it from him and put it in his back pocket. This allegedly happened before McCormack walked Fitzpatrick out. Why wouldn't the prosecution put McCormack on the stand and ask him if he witnessed this? I just don't get how someone can be killed and there are two separate witnesses and one of them is not put on the stand to even answer the most simple of questions about events! Can witnesses refuse to testify?

That is an interesting question no witness can refuse to get into the box, what they may say is another thing. He may not have seen what happened re the knife he may have left before the event.

bajer101

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That is an interesting question no witness can refuse to get into the box, what they may say is another thing. He may not have seen what happened re the knife he may have left before the event.

He didn't leave. He was one of four people in a small apartment and he wasn't called by either side. I found it interesting that the Judge said to the jury that they shouldn't give any significance to the fact that he didn't give evidence. It was almost the same language that was used by the Judge when she instructed the jury not to give significance to the fact that Mahon didn't give evidence. It came across to me that he was refusing to testify!

Johnboy1951

All that would be needed is for the witness to say to both sides, he saw nothing and that would be his full testimony if called.
Not much point in either side calling him in that case.

strandroad

bajer101 wrote: »

He didn't leave. He was one of four people in a small apartment and he wasn't called by either side. I found it interesting that the Judge said to the jury that they shouldn't give any significance to the fact that he didn't give evidence. It was almost the same language that was used by the Judge when she instructed the jury not to give significance to the fact that Mahon didn't give evidence. It came across to me that he was refusing to testify!

I remember a similar situation in some other case in England (I think), and in the comments it was said that it was due to the fact that the potential witness had learning difficulties or was otherwise vulnerable so it would be very hard for them to testify with confidence.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GerardKeating

bajer101 wrote: »

But Mahon alleged that Fitzpatrick took the knife from the block in the kitchen and that Mahon wrestled it from him and put it in his back pocket. This allegedly happened before McCormack walked Fitzpatrick out. Why wouldn't the prosecution put McCormack on the stand and ask him if he witnessed this? I just don't get how someone can be killed and there are two separate witnesses and one of them is not put on the stand to even answer the most simple of questions about events! Can witnesses refuse to testify?

With certain limited exceptions, a witnesses cannot refuse to testify.

I would assume the defence did not call this person because it was not in their interest, and either the prosecution thought they had enough to win, or worried this person might be counter productive.

juno10353

It was stated in court that John mc cormack took Dean out of flat to hallway. David followed and returned with bloody nkife 30 seconds later. It also stated CCTV shows Dean arriving at apt and Mahon leaving 7 minutes later. Did it show Dean and John Mccormack leaving. All very strange