'Edgar' exception an unfamiliar tool for defence
Thursday, December 22, 2016 @ 7:00 PM | By Tushar Pain
Prior consistent statements made by an accused person are generally not admissible at trial. The rationale is that the credibility of the witness is not enhanced simply because the same statement was made before. Therefore, such statements are generally considered superfluous and to lack any probative value. This is known as the rule against oath-helping. Another reason such statements are inadmissible is to prevent an accused person from trying to advance a defence through her own words while avoiding cross-examination.
Of course, exceptions do exist. For...
Of course, exceptions do exist. For...
