Quote:
|
If someone has been overheard threatening to kill someone they are accused of murdering then that is evidence for that case so of course it is appropriate it is heard. What is not apprpriate is a disclosure of past convictions to a Jury, so if the defendant has previously been convicted of threatenning to kill someone that they now stand trial accused of murdering then of course disclosure would predjudice their defence
|
So if a man has been overheard threatening to kill someone that is acceptable evidence (heresay?) but if the sane man has a proven conviction of threatenting to kill the same person that is not acceptable. I fail to see the logic in that.
Let's take it a step further...the police are not allowed to look at previous convictions when looking for the culprit. Every man must have an equal chance of not being accused.
It is I undersatnd only going to be relevant convictions that a jury will hear about which will be determined by the trial judge.
I don't think the judge will allow convictions of flashing in a public park to be made known when the defendant is on a charge of robbery. (unless the robbery ocured at a naturist club and there were questions of identification and modus operandi.