The World Out There - 15. Fifteen

It's feels from the summing up by the lawyers and the Judge, that the Judge wants the jury to find Liam guilty. Liam hasn't been given a fair trial, whatever happened innocent until proven guilty. It's almost if the prosecution and Judge want a successful conviction, another notch on his belt, so to speak.

Very difficult to read. I do hope you have a satisfactory resolution soon. 

2 hours ago, chris191070 said:

It's feels from the summing up by the lawyers and the Judge, that the Judge wants the jury to find Liam guilty. Liam hasn't been given a fair trial, whatever happened innocent until proven guilty. It's almost if the prosecution and Judge want a successful conviction, another notch on his belt, so to speak.

To me, the judge decided that Liam is guilty the moment he was told he would be presiding over his trial.

It's the adversarial nature of our trials, were the defence or prosecution barristers must "win", that I have problems with. There isn't a search the true but just who can win. As for justice being blind… yes… right.

1 hour ago, re2 said:

Very difficult to read. I do hope you have a satisfactory resolution soon. 

This story is about a very difficult subject so it’s telling isn’t easy.

This story is going to be about 50-60,000 words long and I'm at the 30,000 point (Though I am haven’t posted all the chapters I’ve written yet). There's a lot more story to tell before I can reach a resolution. Liam is 19 when he's released from Nurton Cross, here he is only 13. There's a lot happened to him in-between. Please hang on in with me.

And so the jury has the case to decide. The judge made it quite clear what he thought, and hobbled the defense to suit. If the jury finds Liam guilty of manslaughter, that in itself would seem a miracle. 

16 minutes ago, Parker Owens said:

And so the jury has the case to decide. The judge made it quite clear what he thought, and hobbled the defense to suit. If the jury finds Liam guilty of manslaughter, that in itself would seem a miracle. 

Oh, spoilers, spoilers... Wait until the next chapter.

The jury has been influenced by what they have heard and seen in the court room, but they have also been influenced by what they have seen and heard outside the court room too.

Okay, I'm a little late to the game but I'm shocked the defense attorney (solicitor) hasn't demanded the judge recuse himself. He is clearly biased and not impartial; he has his own agenda. The judge is not allowed to influence the jury, which he clearly is. In the States this wouldn't fly and, even if Liam is convicted, an immediate appeal would be filed.

Mrs. Stewart-Graham also missed her chance by not putting Liam on the stand. The prosecution's questions would have opened the door for Liam to speak on being bullied and given her the opportunity to recall previous witnesses and add new ones. Additionally, the judge striking Liam's testimony would've proved bias and achieved a mistrial at the very least.

My heart breaks for this poor boy.

On 12/10/2021 at 2:26 PM, Danners said:

Okay, I'm a little late to the game but I'm shocked the defense attorney (solicitor) hasn't demanded the judge recuse himself. He is clearly biased and not impartial; he has his own agenda. The judge is not allowed to influence the jury, which he clearly is. In the States this wouldn't fly and, even if Liam is convicted, an immediate appeal would be filed.

Mrs. Stewart-Graham also missed her chance by not putting Liam on the stand. The prosecution's questions would have opened the door for Liam to speak on being bullied and given her the opportunity to recall previous witnesses and add new ones. Additionally, the judge striking Liam's testimony would've proved bias and achieved a mistrial at the very least.

My heart breaks for this poor boy.

This story is set in Britain and here we can't ask a judge to recuse themselves. The judge could only be removed from a trial, and before it starts, if there is a direct conflict of interest. In Britain, our judges are there to ensure the law is followed, they have a lot less power than American judges do, and it was through legal arguments, at the beginning of the trial, that Mrs Stewart-Graham’s bullied defence was excluded, though the judge was far too involved in that argument.

At this point, Liam is a shy and very introverted thirteen-year-old. Mrs Stewart-Graham was right not to have him give evidence. He would have come over as stumbling and inarticulate, with one word answers or even silence, which would have only made him look more guilty. Also, Mrs Stewart-Graham could not introduce the evidence that Clarke bullied him by the backdoor, because even if Liam mentioned it on cross-examination, the judge would have had the jury removed and again told off Mrs Stewart-Graham. The ruling at the beginning of his trial meant she couldn't use the bullied defence, or even try and get it in by the backdoor.

(I based this all on two real trials, but I also had help from John Mortimer's Rumpole stories)

There are a lot of grounds for appeal against this trial, not least for Judaical over-reach, but Liam is a minor (though he is tried as an adult, another point I wanted to make here) and they will need his mother's consent for this. When we met his mother in person, her refusal will make sense.

Also, Liam did kill Clarke and, just for a moment, he enjoyed the power he had over his bully.

I didn’t want this story to be a simple black-and-white story, but one of the things I did want to write about is the way children are not treated well by our criminal justice system because it is set up to handle the crimes or adults, not children. A child like Liam cannot participate in his own defence.