jury trial and previous convictions

[nailit]

what would happen during a trial in crown court if either a prosecution witness or a defence witness let it slip that the defendent had previous convictions? Would the trial have to start again with a new jury?

[bensmum]

Previous convictions can be disclosed. I was on jury duty a few weeks back and sat on 3 cases, in each case we were told about previous convictions. One judge explained that it was part of the reforms in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and I think is at the discretion of the judge.

[jake-the-peg]

I think it depends on whether or not it is relevant.

In the Tomlinson case where the Policeman pushed him over and he died the policeman's record (albeit not criminal) was judged not to be relevant because the charge was manslaughter and so there was no question of intent.

If it had been a charge of murder then the judge might well have allowed it.

It's called "bad character"

http://www.cps.gov.uk...idence/#admissibility

if you look at the section below this it seems that if the bad character evidence is "contaminated" the Judge can decide whether to discharge the Jury and retry or acquit

I suspect the same applies to accidental revelation - but I don't know that for a fact

[nailit]

my barrister has informed me that there will be no need to disclose my previous convictions (which are all spent) and largely irrelevent to my present situation. was just curious what would happen if the prosecution "accidently" let it slip or if my defence witness inadvertently let it slip that I had previous convictions.
all of my previous I pleaded guilty to and servrd my time, dont know why they should be relevant to something thats happpening now. people automatically pre-judge and so would a jury, the facts come second...

[FredPuli43]

Usually the jury would be discharged if convictions were accidentally disclosed when they wouldn't otherwise have been given in evidence. It's possible that the jury wouldn't be ,but only because the judge thought that the convictions were so slight and so long ago, or so irrelevant and insignificant, that the jury could be safely told to disregard them and treat the defendant as of good character and not hold the convictions against him.

In the normal trial, previous convictions are only admitted into evidence if they are relevant to some issue in the case being tried; they may yet be excluded , if the judge thinks them far more prejudicial than probative i.e tending to prove anything; or if the defendant is so unwise as to claim that he is of good character, in which case it's only right that the jury should be told that he is lying about that.

(One hazard concerning inadvertent indication of bad character, that counsel may not be prepared for, is the client's witnesses. I once saw the mother of the defendant giving an alibi for her son. His counsel, wishing to establish the relevant date, asked her "Do you remember the police coming to your house to ask about your son and a stabbing?" to which she thought for a moment and replied "Which stabbing was that?" The case proceeded, in the hope that nobody on the jury drew the unfortunate inference!)

[nailit]

Thanks guys. My last conviction was for a minor assault 10 yrs ago for which i served 4 weeks in prison. Since then I have raised a family (including a child which was not my own), have done both charity and paid work and generally tried to live a decent life. My presnt charge is for an 'alleged' affray which lasted only seconds. I have a previous for affray from 20 years ago for which I pleaded guilty and recieved a 4 month jail sentence. The circumstances were totally different. If its bought up in court that I have a previous for affray Im worried that I wont get a fair hearing as the circumstances surrounding my present 'offence' were bought about by a mental breakdown after becomng suicidaly depressed. The fact that all my previous are now spent and I have been of good character since will mean nothing. Dont feel I stand a chance if my previous comes up.

[EDDIE51]

nalit , is this still in reference to your previous posts ? Is the trial now going ahead?
Sorry, but you really need to just post these additional questions on your original threads.
Your case is complicated and we need to view it in conjunction with your previous posts.
In your case I can not see that your previous convictions are relevant and any attempt to bring them up in the current trial would be dismissed by the judge.
However that is just my opinion I have no legal training but I have read and commented on your previous posts , this opinion is based on that.
Hopefully someone like New Judge will see this and give a better answer.

[nailit]

thanks EDDIE51 for all of your helpful replies. I appreciate that maybe I should keep my posts on one thread but my original thread has dropped of the page. Yes, this is a reference to my previous posts and my trial is set for the week commencing 15 october.
You say that any attempt to bring up my previous convictions would be dismissed by the judge but by then the jury would have knowledge that I have previous even if the judge tells them to dismiss them (mud sticks).
I know eneough about human psychology to know that most people believe that a leopard never changes its spots, once guilty always guilty.
Thanks again for all your replies. I cant always answer imiadiatley as i have limited access to a computer but always eventualy get to read them.