Re: The verdict must have been interesting
"Thank you. I will now pass sentence."
An acquaintance was let down by his lawyers who advised him he had committed an unwitting "technical" offence. They told him if he went to trial then the jury would find him guilty on both the technicality and by public prejudice - and that would mean a mandatory prison sentence. However if he pleaded guilty then he would get probation. He had already upped the sentencing ante by electing to go to a Crown Court rather than a Magistrates Court.
So he pled guilty. The judge then criticised the prosecution for their slim evidence from a single home video. "If they had not culled those few frames from the video I would not have noticed them". He also apologised that the sentencing rules tied his hands in what minimum probation he could impose. The guy then spent most of his probationary period playing chess with his probation officer - who had quickly decided he was not an offender. The hyped local media coverage cost him his job - even though an Industrial Tribunal then awarded him compensation.
The other "degrees of separation" defendant in the same case took the jury risk before a different judge. That judge frequently criticised the prosecution's evidence - and particularly their "expert" witness's very subjective statements. The jury said "not guilty".
All starting from an anonymous phone call to the police - who apparently saw career advancement laurels if they could find a large conspiracy ring.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
