Mark Lundy: New Zealand: More light shed on Court of Appeals hitherto secret split decision to allow the jury to hear some of the evidence about biological tissue smeared on one of his shirts which Lundy had attempted to have ruled out as pseudo-science. Stuff.co.
STORY: "Mark Lundy pre-trial decision divided Court of Appeal judges," by reporter Kevin Stent, published by Stuff.co on April 16, 2015.
GIST: "The jury for Mark Lundy's murder trial should not
have been asked to decide the legitimacy of some of the science used
against him, the head of the Court of Appeal believed before the trial. In
a decision that can only now be reported, the three members of the
Court of Appeal were divided on Lundy's pre-trial claim that some of the
scientific evidence against him should not be heard. The
president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ellen France, said a jury
should not be asked to decide the legitimacy of the science, in cases
where two "unquestioned experts" disagreed in the context of a criminal
trial. It might be accepted in time, but it was too soon to say that, she said. But the other two judges said there was a "compelling" argument in favour of allowing the evidence to go to the jury. They said it was "far from pseudo-science and was sufficiently reliable to be worthy of consideration by the jury". On
Wednesday the High Court lifted a suppression order that had kept
secret the attempts Lundy made before his trial to rule out some of the
evidence about biological tissue smeared on one of his shirts."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site. The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html I look forward to hearing from readers at:
My interest in forensic pathology began with my Toronto Star investigative reporting into once famed since disgraced former doctor Charles Smith. I began this Blog after retiring from the Star in 2006 in order to follow the aftermath into the independent Goudge inquiry into many of Smith's cases. I have now begun to focus on cases involving flawed forensic science no matter where they occur (the recent Amanda Knox prosecution in Italy, for example) and am fascinated by the interest in the Blog from people in countries throughout the world. In another development, my interest in "junk science" "pseudo-experts" and the miscarriages of justice they all too often cause has drawn me deeply into the on-going U.S. death penalty debate where so many troubling cases involve issues relating to DNA and other developments in the world of forensic science. For all of this I rely on my experience as a reporter at the Toronto Star, my work as a lawyer in Ontario's criminal courts, and my abhorrence of injustice. Please send cases and developments which may be of interest to this Blog to email@example.com. Read on! Harold Levy.