Optometrist spared jail

[Santo]

No, the judge is just setting the bar very high for a guilty verdict, as it should be? It is up to the jury to decide if that threshold had been reached.

 

Making a mistake, however serious, is not enough to result in a guilty verdict. It requires something extra. It requires an act of negligence. The jury decided that was what occurred in this case.

 

Exactly. I'm given to understand that a judge can actually instruct a jury to return a not-guilty verdict. Is that correct? This clearly didn't occur here.

 

So what instructions did they judge give to the jury before deliberation that El Cid omits? And what did they judge say upon passing sentence? Which El Cid also omits.

[redfox]

Exactly. I'm given to understand that a judge can actually instruct a jury to return a not-guilty verdict. Is that correct? This clearly didn't occur here.

 

So what instructions did they judge give to the jury before deliberation that El Cid omits? And what did they judge say upon passing sentence? Which El Cid also omits.

 

 

 

The judge can direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict - but that only occurs when the judge has determined as a matter of law the jury could not convict the accused.

The Judge will have provided the jury with a written 'route to verdict' - he will have given that to the legal teams in advance and invited submissions (thats what normally happens)

Unless you have the document he gave the jury you haven't a clue what his legal directions were. The sentencing comments have not been particularly well reported nor circulated via the usual legal channels.

 

[bit of experience helps eh santa]

[Santo]

Unless you have the document he gave the jury you haven't a clue what his legal directions were. The sentencing comments have not been particularly well reported nor circulated via the usual legal channels.

 

[bit of experience helps eh santa]

 

Santo.

 

You would agree if that info was in the public domain you could address El Cid's point fully? Namely the below:

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2016 at 00:02 ----------

 

"Mistakes, even very serious mistakes, and errors of judgement, even very serious errors of judgement, are nowhere near enough to found a charge of gross negligence manslaughter" – judge.

 

Sounds a little like the judge is hinting at a not guilty verdict.

 

Which, as I commented, is not all the judge said, and knowing all that the judge said would help with El Cid's 'hinting at a not guilty verdict' observation. No?

 

(I imagine a bit of experience helps, yes)

Edited August 30, 2016 by Santo

[redfox]

The summing up and route to verdict is unlikely to reported despite the fact it is of critical importance if you want to have an accurate idea (and an accurate report- Ive never really followed why the press only hang around for the opening and verdicts - don't often say for much of the evidence unless its a really newsworthy job and the evidence is salacious)

as to the totality of the evidence and the important parts of it - the route to verdict - you won't see that unless and until there is an appeal and that is dealt with -

 

One of the problems of relying on newspaper accounts of criminal trials to form views or options - in truth you can't because unless you know or have heard the totality of the evidence you are in no position to judge.