![]() In the United Kingdom much disquiet had long ago arisen because of mistakes made in identification at criminal trials, of which the most notable examples were perhaps those of Adolf Beck in England and Oscar Slater in Scotland. The trial judge must take it from there, determine his own methodology and exploit his own explorative intelligence and explanatory powers to deal with the peculiar circumstances and emergent problems of each case where the issue arises. An appellate court, however, can do no more than state the principles and underscore the problems the position cannot be illuminated by elaboration. For it must be remembered that their application is not fixed, universal and quiescent like the unbending burden of proof or the presumption of innocence. The problem of visual identification in the adjudicative process is not so much to apprehend the Turnbullian principles but rather to discern and determine whether they are germane to the circumstances of a particular case, and if so, how and to what degree are they to be applied. I do not myself believe that it requires extraordinary powers of perception to grasp the conceptions relevant to this question. On the main question I would wish to say only this: It is axiomatic that the consistent application of principles to given situations is more difficult than their mere enunciation and comprehension.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |