Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:02:29 +0100, findthetruth
wrote:


I was following a murder trial in an independent West Indian
Territory whose legal system is tied to the UK Judicial System.

Here goes : 3 men ..A ,B and C were charged with a murder . C eluded
law enforcement officials for a few years during which time A and B,
brothers, were tried for the murder. A was condemned to death while
B was freed.

C was arrested on another offence tried and sentenced to prison
but under an assumed name. While in prison A informed officials
that C was really the man and not the assumed name he carried.
C was then tried for the murder and sentenced to death . On his
appeal a retrial was ordered.

At the retrial of C the prosecution brought A from death row to give
evidence against C in relation to the murder for which they were all
originally charged . Being a layman I feel that something is wrong
here
and wonder if the evidence of A would have been allowed in a UK
Court .

Of course it would (although he would not of course have been "brought
from death row".

Why do you think it might not?

That is not, of course, to say that the jury would necessarily attach
much weight to the evidence of somebody else already convicted of the
crime. But his evidence would certainly be put before them, and it
would be up to them whether to believe it or not.

He would certainly be cross-examined on his role in the crime and, if
necessary, any inconsistent statements in his own trial put to him. I doubt
if the jury would not become aware A had previously been convicted of, and
been sentenced for, the crime. And of course being on "death row" would be
argued to be a greater incentive to incriminate someone else as a ploy for
clemency, either as minimisation of his own role or "doing a favour" for the
Crown. Not unusual.