It might turn out that way, but it’s not automatic. It’s up to the trier of fact. Even in Perry Mason, the only reason the trial ended (as I recall) when things like this happened was because the prosecution threw in the towel.
The medic says the kid would have been tortured to death later. I missed the fact that the stabbing was not life threatening.
Are you going to accept the word of a confessed murderer (who “confessed” only after he thought he wouldn’t be held accountable) that his injuries were not life threatening? Was there any other independent assessment of the severity of the injuries?
If someone else confessing to a killing was all it took to derail a murder trial, then mafia guys could never be convicted of murder. Big Tony is on trial for killing Little Paulie, and Medium Sammy gets on the stand and confesses. Oh no! Instant acquittal for Big Tony. But Medium Sammy is in trouble, he’s confessed to the murder. He goes on trial, but then Big Tony gets on the stand and confesses to the murder. Oh no! Instant acquittal for Medium Sammy. But is Big Tony now in trouble again? No, he was acquitted at his trial, because Sammy confessed. Interlocking confessions produces reasonable doubt at both trials.
In truth, the finder of fact is entitled to believe or disbelieve any testimony or evidence presented to them. They don’t have to believe the confession, because it’s obviously designed to help out a buddy, and the confessor was given immunity. Sounds like complete bullshit to me.
I am not a legal expert by any means, but…
-
was this a military trial? If so, there are generally different rules.
-
Since you mentioned TV, if this were a legal show, in the rare case where the judge is the protagonist they might say something, but typically at this point in the episode, the prosecutor would be the one designated to ask for acuital, or if really stubborn at least offer a better plea deal.
-
What seems really weird though, is why the prosecutor would offer immunity to a hostile witness.
If I read the article in the OP correctly, it was the judge which granted the immunity, when the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
I haven’t been following the news carefully so I haven’t read anything else, but that’s what I came here to post.
I wonder how that goes down.
This can all be verified by a medical examiner. You don’t have to believe or disbelieve the driver.
That’s changing the situation. Suppose you are sitting in the jury pool. The prosecution has made verbal arguments that “he did it” and showed that he could have done it. The defense has produced a witness who has admitted to doing it in open court, and the evidence indicates that he might have done it.
The witness doesn’t come across the most credible witness you have ever seen, but he comes across as *maybe *telling the truth.
How can any rational trier of fact say "well, he may be lying, or he may not be, so let’s just believe beyond a reasonable doubt he’s lying.
Because in order for the defendant to be factually guilty, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that this other witness who confessed to the crime be lying. It is not logically possible otherwise.
I’m saying that unless you can go over the trial transcript and show some clear outright, observable sign that indicates the witness is lying, or some clear factual inconsistency in his testimony, to make this decision is irrational. A person’s fate shouldn’t come down to the gut feel of a few random people.
Legal, yes, and there are probably thousands of people sitting in prison today convicted by irrational juries. But irrational.
Well, it required a jury to vote for it, but the Perry Mason moment appears to have worked. Given the jury deliberated for days, it’s quite likely such a dramatic piece of evidence was the tipping point.
Edward Gallagher has been acquitted of murder and his punishment reduced to time served + demotion of one grade. Show’s over folks, the wrist slap has been issued.
What the hell kind of immunity did the judge grant him? I’ve covered enough cases like this to know most immunity is very specific. Did the judge give him a complete get out of jail free card? I’d have expected him to be granted something about not being prosecuted if found to be an accessory to the killing somehow not more.
“I plead the 5th unless I have total immunity to anything I might say in court in response to questions about the matter at hand”
I thought this type of immunity *had *to be pretty broad or the witness’s attorneys will just refuse to allow him to testify. (you know, if he has good representation). And appeal to the next court up.