(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;
I was just thinking about this....
If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen as "Not Guilty" before he faced a "Murder trial... Then does that mean he would have been free if the Jury found him NOT GUILTY of "Murder"???? As the only option Offered to the Jury was "The Murder Charge"..
You then have to ask yourself why.. Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand??
A Lawyer is there to Defend... Why didn't Clegg just tell Dr Vincent Tabak to keep quite???
It's for the "Prosecution" to prove their Case... NOT for the "Defence to "Prove" The Prosecutions case for them...
What would have happened if Dr Vincent Tabak had just sat there and not said a word???
The "Prosecution" had NO CASE!!!
It was only because Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand that we are supposed to understand the unfolding events...
Why did "Clegg" get Dr Vincent Tabak to take the stand???
And why did "Clegg: get Dr Vincent Tabak to sign his "Statement in
September 2011...
No signed statement... No Case !!!
I thought "Clegg" had a great reputation... why would he jeopardize it???
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf