[pugsville]

I think one big issue is that a judge would very probably not allow the information in this type of academic paper, or the argument that the study implied, to be admitted in a trial.

Does not seem fair to not be allowing an argument into the trial that might convince a rational jury not to convict.

Remember, the jury is free to bring up any arguments they want behind closed doors in the jury deliberation room. So I don't see how you can argue this was about an argument.

What it's about is the statistical information in that study, which supported an argument.

The instructions to the jury, they are to decide on the argument and evidence presented in court.

And how is anyone tot now if that information is accurate ? Or if that study was flawed? Extermination in open court with a chance at rebuttal otherwise the entire system is reduced.

[ingliz]

would obviously have helped protect the defendant from being convicted.

Then why, knowing the rules, didn't the lawyers for the defence call the author of the paper as an expert witness so s/he could be cross-examined before this exculpatory evidence went to the jury?

[Puffer Fish]

Then why, knowing the rules, didn't the lawyers for the defence call the author of the paper as an expert witness so s/he could be cross-examined before this exculpatory evidence went to the jury?

Theoretically, yes. But there are problems with that.

First of all, I question whether all the burden should be on the defense to be the ones to have to prove their case.

Second of all, it is very common for judges not to allow that sort of thing into the trial. That would have likely been the case here.


How about if the rules were changed and members of the jury were allowed to submit outside evidence to the trial?
(maybe so long as that evidence was not specific to the case)