‘Potential to hurt you’
Another said: “You want the accused to be giving credible evidence.
“Not giving evidence has potential to hurt you, especially when it goes to the possibility of certain things happening.”
However, others suggested Cardinal Pell might have given the jury another reason to find him guilty.
“What if you give evidence and the jury dislikes you?” said one.
Another barrister suggested that if Pell had given evidence it would be another reason for an appeal court to conclude the verdict was safe.
Attention was drawn to the cleric’s evidence before the royal commission into institutional child abuse. Cardinal Pell drew gasps from onlookers when he was asked about the serial abuser Gerard Ridsdale.
“I didn’t know whether it was common knowledge or whether it wasn’t,” he said. “It’s a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me.”
Asked why, Cardinal Pell said he “had no reason to turn my mind to the extent of the evil that Ridsdale had perpetrated”.
The lawyers were also split on the decision of the trial judge not to allow a video to be shown during the defence summing up.
Some said this could be a point worthy of raising at an appeal, while others said appeal courts had made it clear that new evidence could not be introduced at that stage of a trial.
Deny the defence
“Why would you deny the defence an opportunity to put its best case forward; to leave an image to go with the words.
“I reckon that has got some legs.”
The lawyers saw significance in Cardinal Pell’s legal team dropping their application for bail pending an appeal, saying it indicated that they were not confident they had an argument that was strong enough to sway the court into thinking the verdict might be overturned.
While probably not an argument for an appeal, there was some disquiet around the fact that the jury deliberated for four days after an earlier jury was discharged because it could not reach a verdict.
“I would have discharged the jury at the end of the third day,” said one silk. “You can wear people down.”
There was one point on which there was agreement – that Cardinal Pell had the best possible representation in solicitor Paul Galbally and barrister Robert Richter QC.
“Richter had been around for a long time,” said one. “He’s the go-to man for anyone that’s been charged [with a serious crime].”
from Trendy Newses https://ift.tt/2T87aH7
0 Comments