He's been found not guilty - nothing to fear now
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
He's been found not guilty - nothing to fear now
Theres a huge flaw in your theory.
It seems inconceivable to me that high court judges would not also have come the same conclusion as you were the above the case in point. High Court judges could not fail to cast more than a little reasonable doubt as to the veracity of new witnesses under these circumstances and as far as i am aware this has not even been a line of questioning from the prosecution.
What you have posted is alluding to a crystal clear case of 'paid witnesses'.
There is a much wider concern here. Based on what youve posted then anyone convicted of a crime who has the financial means can essentially get a retrial by the same route. The legal precedent would surely be very dangerous indeed.
If youre right, then Evans is doomed. However, i cannot see that our legal system would be so naive.
The court of appeal aren't going to necessarily look in the same way as prosecutors though.
They'd be looking to see if the evidence *may* affect the result. if new evidence conclusively showed Ched getting consent, there would be no retrial. If the evidence was incredibly laughable, there would be no retrial.
The prosecution have shown new witnesses were aware of a financial offer on reward for evidence clearing Ched and indeed the "Justice for Ched" website. That instantly brings the evidence into question - especially given the evidence doesn't pertain to the allegation Ched is facing. Neither were present at the Premier Inn on the night in question.
The court of appeal rightly (imo) determined this new evidence needed to be presented to a jury and subject to cross-examination from the prosecution. I doubt it would set a legal precedent per se as you suggest - it would be a case by case, evidence by evidence based judgement.
Personally, i think it is this that lies at the heart of Evans' defence. The woman herself says she remembers nothing after the pizza place other than being in a hotel lobby. She then wakes up the next morning. It is this recollection, or lack thereof, that could see Ched Evans aquitted. The original jury cannot reasonably take the same evidence to free one and imprison another?
If she doesnt remember, they are taking Donaldsons word against her, but her word against ched Evans.
Any reasonable person can surely see that either both men are innocent, or both guilty - based on the evidence presented. Again, and ive touched on this before, the judge did not direct the jury correctly regarding consent when drunk. He should have told the jury that a woman can now be classed as capable of giving consent under the influence. Why he did not is critical because if the jury are not directed thus, any with doubt as to the womans 'unconscious state' could still in their own mind convict Evans because the woman was inarguably drunk.
Does he go back to prison if so?
I'm not following it in the press but i am enjoying the lawyers, barristers and experts on here. sordid affair. Can't imagine what is going through his wife's head having to listen to all this and still standing by her man, strange decision.
He's served the time, as seen from when he was released and tried to resume his football career, before launching the appeal.
Having the charge quashed would make his football career go a little better. I imagine Chesterfield would be under pressure to let him go if he is found guilty again.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-ev...trial-ordered/
"One point to note though is that if he is found guilty at the re-trial, then he cannot get a higher sentence than at the first trial (5 years imprisonment).
Given that he has served the custodial part of his sentence, there is therefore no question of him being sent back to prison."
One point, now I've got McDonald's name stuck in my head ;)
Under oath, Ched Evans stated that Clayton McDONALD asked the girl if he could join in. Evans stated he didn't speak to the woman ( "It wasn't the time for conversation" ).
Therefore, the ONLY way Evans would have had consent would have been if the woman agreed with McDONALD, giving consent to him for Evans to join in.
So why on earth did the defence NOT get McDONALD on the stand to confirm that? McDONALD confirms consent as given to him for Evans to join in, then the case is over.
I just can't see the evidence that clearly makes ched guilty there is to much doubt surrounding this case