Court Trials and Evidence

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-07-03 10:43pm

I am curious about what type of laws govern a judges ability to exclude or include evidence.

In Norfolk Virginia, there was a trial of three navy sailors on a rape and murder charge. After a long period of interogation, they all admited to the crime. There was a large amount of DNA evidence on the crime which none of it matched any of the sailors. Later DNA evidence liked to a male of african decent who has been convicted previously of rape. The three sailors where tried for the rape and murder anyway and the DNA evidence was excluded by the judge when they were tried. They were all convicted. this seems a sham trial to me.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-03 10:51pm

Military trials are much, much different than civilian criminal trials. At least in the US, the laws for in/excluding evidence are rather convoluted, varying from state to state.

If the DNA evidence was excluded, they have an excellent grounds for appeal, depending on the circumstatnces.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-07-03 10:54pm

Virginia has one of those 21 day laws, that new evidence presented has to be presneted within 21 days. I could not believe the case myself and it appears than many people (Jurors) cannot believe that someone would admit guilt when they are not guilty.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-04 11:04am

I htink that if you admit to a crime, then you're screwed. Unless you can prove it was under duress.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-04 01:37pm

innerbrat wrote:I htink that if you admit to a crime, then you're screwed. Unless you can prove it was under duress.

After spending so long in interrogation, they probably can say that.