Will a judge read previous trials?

Previous convictions are only considered during sentencing.
The judge only deals with the evidence for the matter at hand during a trial and it is vanishingly rare for previous convictions to be used in evidence at trial.

In any event, you mention the previous trial resulted in an acquittal.
What possible influence could that have on the current matter?
An acquittal is a confirmation of innocence, of being not guilty and as such free to carry on one's life without any conviction.
How do you think that would influence an ongoing proceeding?

banie01 wrote: »

Previous convictions are only considered during sentencing.
The judge only deals with the evidence for the matter at hand during a trial and it is vanishingly rare for previous convictions to be used in evidence at trial.

In any event, you mention the previous trial resulted in an acquittal.
What possible influence could that have on the current matter?
An acquittal is a confirmation of innocence, of being not guilty and as such free to carry on one's life without any conviction.
How do you think that would influence an ongoing proceeding?

Everything this guy said is spot on.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The only time a previous trial might be relevant is if it was put to the defendant that he had given different evidence in a previous trial.
If he had said "I have never driven a motorbike "in his first trial, and then, in the second trial said "I drove a motorbike to or from x place" at a time covered by the statement in the first trial and the prosecution asked him about the previous statement, then the proceedings in the first trial might be relevant.

You cannot include previous evidence from one trial to another.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It can be put to a witness under cross-examination that he gave a contradictory statement at an earlier trial.

If the trial is for the same offence. Not if it is another offence. It is prejudicing the jury to do that.

Mmm. Tread carefully. If we are talking about not just any witness, but about the defendant in a criminal trial - and I think we are talking about that - then the jury should not be made aware that the defendant was previously charged with other offences, because the prejudicial effect of that information tends to outweigh any probative value it may have. So, if the witness whose character you wish to impugn is not only the defendant in this trial but was also the defendant in the earlier trial in which he gave contradictory evidence, you'd have to find some way of introducing evidence of what he said at the earlier trial which did not risk disclosing that he was the defendant in that earlier trial. Which, realistically, may not be possible. So you won't be allowed to introduce this evidence.

Different story if the witness whose character you wish to impugn is not the defendant in this trial. Impugn away!

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It will be admissible if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. If the defence is based on alibi where the defendant says I was in x place at y time and in his previous trial he had stated under oath that you was in z place at y time, it would certainly be admitted.

Possibly not, if it can only be admitted at the cost of disclosing that he was previously charged with Z offence, which of course would tend to prejudice the jury against him.

It's a while since I studied the law of evidence, but my recollection is that the rule against introducing evidence disclosing previous charges against the defendant, was very strong and very consistent, and the general view was that its prejudicial effect could not be countered by an instruction to the jury. My expectation would be that a judge asked to admit this evidence would refuse, and that if he agreed and a conviction ensued, that would be a central feature in the inevitable appeal.

Of course, my knowledge could be out of date. Have their been cases where evidence of this kind was admitted, and this was held to be proper?

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a while since I studied the law of evidence, but my recollection is that the rule against introducing evidence disclosing previous charges against the defendant, was very strong and very consistent, and the general view was that its prejudicial effect could not be countered by an instruction to the jury. My expectation would be that a judge asked to admit this evidence would refuse, and that if he agreed and a conviction ensued, that would be a central feature in the inevitable appeal.

Of course, my knowledge could be out of date. Have their been cases where evidence of this kind was admitted, and this was held to be proper?

I can quote a case when what you said happened. That was the grounds I said its ruled inadmissable if allowed in but it is prejudicial if a jury hears it.

Mark farrelly and Jay Kavanagh.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Have you a link?

They had 3 or 4 retrials. You were given their names, surely you can Google.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are making a proposition of law. It is up to you to supply links.
In any case all a google reveals is that they had evidence deemed inadmissible on the basis of a defective search warrant. This has nothing to do with the subject matter of this discussion.
I have provided a link to a Court of appeal judgement showing that a jury was allowed to hear a reference to a previous trial and a warning was adequate. This flatly contradicts what you were saying earlier in this thread.
Something more than pub talk and smart remarks about google should be offered in response.

Mark farrellys reply to inferences being invoked was read out in his first trial, he got a retrial over it as it was read in his second after being disclosed in the first in front of a diff jury.the defective warrant was regarding the arrest.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Links?

There's 2 on Google search them

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There's hundreds of links on Google about Mark Farrelly. I'm not reading 100s of news articles to find what you say is 2 links.

+1. Links or its BS.