Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

so tell me...does a judge look through every piece of evidence pre trial and decide if its admissible..before allowing it...or does he rely on the defence to raise any questions re the admissibility of evidence

Ultimately a judge is responsible for any evidence presented before a court. He has to decide what is admissible or inadmissible not the defence counsel, prosecution or anybody else. There is no responsibility on the defence counsel to ensure that inadmissible evidence is not presented before court. As the case proceeds the judge at any point before it is presented can rule evidence inadmissible if he feels it may prejudice the trial.

Say, at the pre hearing the judge noticed there was some hearsay testimony that is inadmissible, he wouldn’t say to himself “If the defence don’t raise this I am going to allow it”
Or on day 4 some evidence is going to be presented that would reference something that has already been excluded he would rule that inadmissible also.  The onus is on the Judge.

Surely this make sense ?

[Mr Gray]

Ultimately a judge is responsible for any evidence presented before a court. He has to decide what is admissible or inadmissible not the defence counsel, prosecution or anybody else. There is no responsibility on the defence counsel to ensure that inadmissible evidence is not presented before court. As the case proceeds the judge at any point before it is presented can rule evidence inadmissible if he feels it may prejudice the trial.

Say, at the pre hearing the judge noticed there was some hearsay testimony that is inadmissible, he wouldn’t say to himself “If the defence don’t raise this I am going to allow it”
Or on day 4 some evidence is going to be presented that would reference something that has already been excluded he would rule that inadmissible also.  The onus is on the Judge.

Surely this make sense ?

In actual fact inadmissible evidence was presented at the trial... the full written pathologist report. The Judge told the jury simply to ignore it.



Nothing you have posted can show my claim that had the alerts been challenged ...then they would not have been admitted. This therefore shows tht the fact they were admitted makes them evidence simply your opinion.

Your claim that The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts,  belongs in the nearest bin.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

 ]

[Icanhandlethetruth]

In actual fact inadmissible evidence was presented at the trial... the full written pathologist report. The Judge told the jury simply to ignore it.



Nothing you have posted can show my claim that had the alerts been challenged ...then they would not have been admitted. This therefore shows tht the fact they were admitted makes them evidence simply your opinion.

Your claim that The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts,  belongs in the nearest bin.

This is very true, it happens very often in court cases that the judge will ask the jury to disregard some evidence or testimony. After all he can’t foresee what a witness is going to testify later that day or even one of the counsels may say when questioning a witness. Its a very live process a judge has to react to a fluid moving situation.
That said, in either case we are talking about did the judge ask the jury to disregard the dog alert evidence ?

[Mr Gray]

This is very true, it happens very often in court cases that the judge will ask the jury to disregard some evidence or testimony. After all he can’t foresee what a witness is going to testify later that day or even one of the counsels may say when questioning a witness. Its a very live process a judge has to react to a fluid moving situation.
That said, in either case we are talking about did the judge ask the jury to disregard the dog alert evidence ?

No because it wasn't challenged..
You did previously post that if inadmissible evidence was admitted... The judge would order a retrial... You've obviously  abandoned  that one now

[Icanhandlethetruth]

No because it wasn't challenged..
You did previously post that if inadmissible evidence was admitted... The judge would order a retrial... You've obviously  abandoned  that one now

There was no way the judge could know that the following was going to happen to rule it as inadmissible could he.
He didn't judge it serious enough to desert the trial diet. I haven't abandoned anything if a serious piece of inadmissible evidence arose a judge would order a retrial. If its minor he won't. I didn't think I would have to describe every nuance of court proceedings.

From the High court papers not from a podcast.

"Three unedited copies of the report were given to the jury in error. Although the pathologist gave oral evidence in respect of all four conclusions, his testimony did not cover the italicised sections set out above. The jury noticed the discrepancy in their copies and brought it to the court's attention on the following day. A motion to desert was made, but the trial judge refused that in favour of a direction to the jury to disregard the matters not covered by the pathologist in the witness box"

So it wasn't really challenged at the time by the defence either.

[Mr Gray]

There was no way the judge could know that the following was going to happen to rule it as inadmissible could he.
He didn't judge it serious enough to desert the trial diet. I haven't abandoned anything if a serious piece of inadmissible evidence arose a judge would order a retrial. If its minor he won't. I didn't think I would have to describe every nuance of court proceedings.

From the High court papers not from a podcast.

"Three unedited copies of the report were given to the jury in error. Although the pathologist gave oral evidence in respect of all four conclusions, his testimony did not cover the italicised sections set out above. The jury noticed the discrepancy in their copies and brought it to the court's attention on the following day. A motion to desert was made, but the trial judge refused that in favour of a direction to the jury to disregard the matters not covered by the pathologist in the witness box"

So it wasn't really challenged at the time by the defence either.

I'm referring to the alerts as not being challenged

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I'm referring to the alerts as not being challenged

Well why do you think that they weren't challenged. Twice. By two different legal teams.
What reason?
If they were so inadmissible did the defence counsel not notice that they were being presented before the court in front of their very eyes.

[Mr Gray]

Well why do you think that they weren't challenged. Twice. By two different legal teams.
What reason?
If they were so inadmissible did the defence counsel not notice that they were being presented before the court in front of their very eyes.

Poor defence

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Poor defence

Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.

You couldn't make it up.

Stop it my sides are hurting.

[Venturi Swirl]

Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.

You couldn't make it up.

Stop it my sides are hurting.

Come on, uncorroborated dog alerts admitted in evidence that weren’t challenged by the defence?  I’d say that was pretty poor. 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Come on, uncorroborated dog alerts admitted in evidence that weren’t challenged by the defence?  I’d say that was pretty poor.

In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.

[G-Unit]

In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.

What is clear is that it can no longer be said that cadaver dog alerts aren't evidence because they have been used in court as evidence.

[Venturi Swirl]

In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.

Davel’s contention is that the defence did not try hard enough or at all to petition for the evidence to be excluded as it should have been.  This is opinion now, to which we are all entitled and which you asked Davel to express and laughed so hard your sides ached when he did as you asked.  But really it was a valid opinion, so no need for the sarky comment IMO.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Davel’s contention is that the defence did not try hard enough or at all to petition for the evidence to be excluded as it should have been.  This is opinion now, to which we are all entitled and which you asked Davel to express and laughed so hard your sides ached when he did as you asked.  But really it was a valid opinion, so no need for the sarky comment IMO.

 I am sorry, please forgive me, but I find it really funny that Davel thinks he knows the intricacies of the legal process better than 2 defence counsels that have both studied law for many years. That he can judge their performance to be poor, based on what experience exactly. I have only be here a few days but it is awash with sarky comments so don't be so precious. IMO