The Words Right and Correct Are Politically Incorrect says Delaware High Court

In an unprecedented ruling overturning the conviction of 2nd degree murder, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled the verdict had to be overturned because the prosecuter said the state’s witnesses testimony was right and correct.  The jury may have been swayed by the prosecuter vouching for the testimony.  I suspect that one day, moral and immoral will be added to the banned list along with reading from the Bible and right and correct. Really?  If the prosecuter did not believe the testimony, than the case should not have been brought.  Do our elite judges really think the public serving on juries are that week minded?  Next ruling may be child molester freed because Delaware Supreme Court believed that the AG’s office used Jedi mind tricks.

5 thoughts on “The Words Right and Correct Are Politically Incorrect says Delaware High Court”

  1. It seems that nothing is politically correct with the current attitude in America. The Delaware and US Supreme are literally legislating from the bench, instead of interpreting the law, as was their mandate

  2. Try reading the opinion. It had nothing to do with “political correctness.” You see, in court, unlike this blog, you have to demonstrate something is true before you can assert it as a fact.

  3. The prosecutor erred. His job isn’t to offer opinions as to the accuracy of the testimony of witnesses.

    No matter; the court remanded the case for re-trial, and we can all rest assured that this piece of garbage is headed to the can for a lengthy period.

  4. Nobody on October 23, 2013 at 08:04 said: “You see, in court, unlike this blog, you have to demonstrate something is true before you can assert it as a fact.”

    Unfortunately that is a frequent problem with the courts.

    Attorneys are not supposed to offer evidence or facts, but they frequently do — whether prosecutors, defense attorneys, attorneys in civil cases. This abuse is rampant in divorce cases, where attorneys get up and describe what the facts are — and the judge believes and adopts those unsworn statements as true.

    Judges are supposed to enforce the rules — but they don’t.

    The legal system is “corrupt” (as in bent out of shape, twisted from its proper functioning, NOT in the strict sense of pay-offs) when lawyers get away with saying things about the facts without the facts being established by witnesses sworn under oath and by reliable evidence. But it happens all the time.

    One of the reforms that is needed in the legal system is that an attorney who says something about what the facts are should be automatically subject to the CRIMINAL PERJURY laws.

    If that attorney calls a high-school dropout to testify, and the witness lies, the witness can be prosecuted for perjury.

    But if that attorney lies to the jury, although very knowledgeable about the law and sophisticated in legal issues, the attorney is free to lie all day long.

  5. However, I do think David Anderson is “right and correct” on this one.

    When the prosecutor summarizes the case at the end of the trial — summation or closing — he or she CAN argue that the prosecution believes the jury should find the following:

    6. Witness X’s testimony was “right and correct” for the following reasons.

    In summation, the lawyers tell the jury how THEY (the lawyers) view the evidence that was presented.

    Both sides present contrary versions of what the evidence MEANT if you put it all together.

    So the lawyers are telling the jury THIS is how I see it, and we (our side) ASKS you to find for our side for the following reasons…

    I am glad that THIS time the Supreme Court is being a stickler for detail, but this rule is more honored in the breach than in the observance.

    If this signals a change ACROSS THE BOARD, it could be a good thing. But if it is yet another example of haphazard and inconsistent handling of legal cases in America’s courts, it just looks silly.

Comments are closed.