D
Dave The Dude
Guest
Criminal Law in Thailand Part 35: The criminal trial _ evidence
One of the principles of a fair trial is that there should
be as few surprises as possible, so both sides can fairly prepare for the
evidence that the other plans to introduce. Thus before the trial both the
prosecutor and accused must submit a list of evidence and witnesses to the court
and the opposing side. This gives each side the opportunity to examine the
evidence the other side claims will support its case at trial, and even contact
opposing witnesses to find out what they will say.
The prosecution's list must be submitted at least 15 days before the start of
trial. The defence must submit its list the day before it begins presenting its
evidence at trial.
Once the trial starts, the prosecutor presents evidence first. As stated
earlier, the prosecution must prove to the judge each element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.
What evidence may the judge consider and what evidence must be disregarded?
Of course, the human factor comes into play here. A judge may deem evidence
inadmissible, but knowing of it could still influence a verdict.
Here's a fictitious example of what we mean. Let's say the police hear from a
very unreliable informant that there might be drugs in Mr X's house. Rather than
get a warrant, they go over to the house and illegally search it, finding drugs.
At Mr X's trial for illegal drug possession, the judge rules that the drugs are
not admissible to be considered at the trial because they were the product of
the illegal search and because it would be against the interests of justice to
admit this evidence.
The other evidence in this example is pretty sketchy _ the testimony of the
police informant.
It turns out, however, that this informant often tells the police that people
_ particularly those he doesn't like _ have drugs. It is also discovered that
the police ignore his drug addiction and regular illegal purchases because of
the information he provides them. The defence introduces testimony from other
witnesses showing that the informant has lied and been wrong in many other
cases.
So how does the judge determine guilt or innocence in this case?
The real evidence _ the drugs _ is not admissible. There is other evidence,
but it insufficient on its own to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime
was committed. But wouldn't the judge be just a little bit influenced by knowing
that the crime has been committed in deciding whether to believe the informant
in this case?
Of course. This example proves what you already knew about the legal system _
that it's set up to include a certain human element. And it's this element _
good and bad _ that determines the fundamental justice of a legal system.
Section 226/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that evidence obtained
wrongfully or through bad faith shall be excluded from the trial, unless
admitting the evidence is more useful in the cause of justice or basic human
rights and liberty. Thus, even if the evidence is illegally obtained, the judge
may still decide that it is in the best interest of justice to admit it to be
used by the prosecutor at trial.
Next time, we'll talk more about what can be admitted in evidence and what
can't.
- Published: 9/01/2011 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: Spectrum
One of the principles of a fair trial is that there should
be as few surprises as possible, so both sides can fairly prepare for the
evidence that the other plans to introduce. Thus before the trial both the
prosecutor and accused must submit a list of evidence and witnesses to the court
and the opposing side. This gives each side the opportunity to examine the
evidence the other side claims will support its case at trial, and even contact
opposing witnesses to find out what they will say.
The prosecution's list must be submitted at least 15 days before the start of
trial. The defence must submit its list the day before it begins presenting its
evidence at trial.
Once the trial starts, the prosecutor presents evidence first. As stated
earlier, the prosecution must prove to the judge each element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.
What evidence may the judge consider and what evidence must be disregarded?
Of course, the human factor comes into play here. A judge may deem evidence
inadmissible, but knowing of it could still influence a verdict.
Here's a fictitious example of what we mean. Let's say the police hear from a
very unreliable informant that there might be drugs in Mr X's house. Rather than
get a warrant, they go over to the house and illegally search it, finding drugs.
At Mr X's trial for illegal drug possession, the judge rules that the drugs are
not admissible to be considered at the trial because they were the product of
the illegal search and because it would be against the interests of justice to
admit this evidence.
The other evidence in this example is pretty sketchy _ the testimony of the
police informant.
It turns out, however, that this informant often tells the police that people
_ particularly those he doesn't like _ have drugs. It is also discovered that
the police ignore his drug addiction and regular illegal purchases because of
the information he provides them. The defence introduces testimony from other
witnesses showing that the informant has lied and been wrong in many other
cases.
So how does the judge determine guilt or innocence in this case?
The real evidence _ the drugs _ is not admissible. There is other evidence,
but it insufficient on its own to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime
was committed. But wouldn't the judge be just a little bit influenced by knowing
that the crime has been committed in deciding whether to believe the informant
in this case?
Of course. This example proves what you already knew about the legal system _
that it's set up to include a certain human element. And it's this element _
good and bad _ that determines the fundamental justice of a legal system.
Section 226/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that evidence obtained
wrongfully or through bad faith shall be excluded from the trial, unless
admitting the evidence is more useful in the cause of justice or basic human
rights and liberty. Thus, even if the evidence is illegally obtained, the judge
may still decide that it is in the best interest of justice to admit it to be
used by the prosecutor at trial.
Next time, we'll talk more about what can be admitted in evidence and what
can't.
Last edited by a moderator: