The judge in the trial of Graham Dwyer for the murder of Elaine O'Hara has told the jurors to put their feelings about Mr Dwyer aside when considering their verdict.
Mr Dwyer, 42, of Kerrymount Close, Foxrock, Dublin, has pleaded not guilty to murdering Ms O'Hara on 22 August 2012.
In his speech to the jury, Mr Justice Tony Hunt told them they would have to give a "true verdict" by applying what he said about the law to their view of the facts.
Mr Justice Hunt said there was one count on the issue paper they would have in front of them - whether or not Mr Dwyer was guilty of the crime of murder.
He said they were not required to consider if he was guilty of other things. He said manifestly he was guilty of certain misconduct but that was not a criminal offence.
Mr Justice Hunt said their feelings about Mr Dwyer were irrelevant to their deliberations and would only obscure the road they had to take.
He said Mr Dwyer's conduct may not be irrelevant but their feelings may be.
He said the only question was whether or not what they had seen or heard was capable of making a contribution to the prosecution case.
He said the jurors had the very odd situation in this case in that a jury is normally shielded from certain aspects of an accused person's character to allow them to come to an objective view of the case.
But he said it was necessary because of the type of issues in this case that they saw a side of Mr Dwyer in a very harsh and unforgiving light.
He said they were shown certain material, not to make him look bad but, because the material could be potentially relevant to the case the prosecution was making.
He said the prosecution wanted them to consider these matters in the context of the picture they wanted the jury to accept of what happened on 22 August 2012.
He said he wanted to get the video clips they had seen out of the way.
He said he had no doubt these clips had a visceral impact. He said they were "horrific" and "horrendous".
But he said they were not on day release from an enclosed institution. He said they were adult, fully functioning members of society.
He said they should not be shocked by people having sex. But he said the accompaniment to that shown in the videos was not usual.
But he said the people in the videos were engaging in these acts on the basis of agreement.
Judge says prosecution had to bring jury all the way
He said one thing this case had shown us is that life is not something that is simple, neat and easily parcelled up.
He said when the immediate impact of the videos had died down, they must let the shock they had felt drift away. He said they had been shown the videos to allow them to assess what Mr Dwyer had said in interviews and to allow them to assess the content of the relationship or motivations of people.
He said what they had seen and heard would not lend them to a frame of mind where they would think well of Mr Dwyer. He said no one could have a good opinion of the kind of thing he had seen.
But he said what anyone thought of Mr Dwyer was entirely irrelevant. He said they had one count on the issue paper - whether or not he was guilty of the crime of murder.
Mr Justice Hunt said the prosecution had to bring the jury all the way along the road.
He said if the jurors get as far as 6pm on 22 August 2012, they would have to ask themselves about the four years prior to that.
He said they would have to ask themselves if it was reasonably possible that all of this was the product of an "unusual mind" or whether or not there was something more to it.
He said proof of thoughts was not a crime. Proof of unusual fantasies was not a crime.
He said a crime was only constituted if they were satisfied the ingredients of murder were there.
He said anything short of that, no matter how unpleasant, did not entitle the prosecution to get the verdict they seek.
There are no thought crimes here, he said.
He said they had to be satisfied what they had heard constituted a blue print for action and that that blueprint was followed.
He said they must be satisfied of that to a very high standard.
Jury free to decide what to do with the facts, judge says
Mr Justice Hunt told the jurors that they were on a jury precisely because they were not lawyers.
He said they were completely free to decide what to do with the facts. But they were not free to decide what law to apply and he would give them the law in the case.
But he said anything he said about the facts in the case were entirely a matter for them.
He said he would point out areas for them to consider but he said ultimately they would decide what was significant or what to accept.
He said the only thing that mattered was their considered view of what they had heard while they had been here.
He said a judge like himself with three decades of experience of the courts would have a certain weariness and cynicism and would lose sensitivity, freshness and impartiality.
He said freshness, impartiality and a lack of weariness were vital qualities for a jury. And he said 12 heads are better than one.
He said they had been entrusted with the responsibility of making the decision being asked of them on their own behalf and on behalf of the community.
Mr Justice Hunt told the jurors that having cleared their heads of the fog and smoke that surrounded aspects of this case, they must apply the legal principles in a considered way.
He said the basis of their verdict must be the evidence. He said they were not entitled to speculate. They decided the case on the facts or on deductions or inferences based on the facts.
They must apply the law in a clinical manner. They must leave emotions and sentiments out of it.
He said Graham Dwyer was presumed innocent unless and until they decide otherwise. He said that presumption of innocence informs every move they make in the jury room.
Pointing to Mr Dwyer he said whatever they think of him, that man was innocent unless they decided otherwise.
He asked them to remember what he was on trial for, and what he was not. He said very few people were all bad.
Mr Justice Hunt told the jury the burden of proof remained on the Prosecution.
He said there was no onus on Mr Dwyer or Mr Farrell to prove innocence.
He said Mr Dwyer had the option of not giving evidence and the jury could not draw inferences from this.
He said the legal test of the evidence provided by the prosecution was that the proof was beyond reasonable doubt.
This was a very high but not impossible standard.
He also told them their decision could not be changed. A jury verdict was good for all time. Their verdict was unimpeachable and it had to be right.
He said it could only be considered unsafe if someone like him did something wrong.
Mr Justice Hunt said he would deal with circumstantial evidence after lunch and would wrap up tomorrow.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Jurors in Dwyer trial told to 'put feelings aside'
Dengan url
http://newsdeadlineup.blogspot.com/2015/03/jurors-in-dwyer-trial-told-to-put.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Jurors in Dwyer trial told to 'put feelings aside'
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Jurors in Dwyer trial told to 'put feelings aside'
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar