This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

U.S. Supreme Court

Aug. 6, 2013

When courts reject inconvenient facts

As the state high court recently held, prosecutors must actually produce evidence rather than just arguments. The U.S. high court, on the other hand, might disagree. By Thomas M. Hall


By Thomas M. Hall


Before the American Revolution, Crown prosecutors faced a problem when trying to convict American colonists of some crimes. Colonial juries proved sympathetic to defendants, and rigorously required prosecutors to prove every element of an offense. When such proof was inadequate, juries acquitted defendants.


In frustration, the Crown adopted the practice of transferring defendants to London or Nova Scotia or other Crown-friendly venues...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up