Recanting testimony is regarded as very unreliable, and a court will usually deny a new trial based on that ground where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. That was just a throw-away line — known in the legal world as dictum — because the appellate record in the Marquis case was devoid of evidence regarding the general reliability of recantations. Dictum has no precedential value even if true — which, in this instance, experience has shown it wasn’t. Nonetheless, the discredited rationale has been cited repeatedly by Illinois courts to justify denying new trials to innocent convicted defendants whose accusers have recanted. Appellate courts grasp at straws to get the result they want in criminal cases? No way!
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:58:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015