Is evidence obtained fraudulently admissible in court?

'You can't simply take other person's DNA and tender it in court without consent. Simple as that. I learned it from CSI TV series.'

Sodomy II: Judge orders trial within a trial

Anonymous_5fb: I can't understand the necessity for a 'trial within a trial'. To me, the so-called evidence gathered from the lock-up should not be admitted either as exhibits or evidence for the simple reason that the lock-up is not the crime scene where Anwar is charged with having committed sodomy.

Maybe defence lawyer Karpal Singh intended to discredit the prosecution through this 'trial within a trial' and to drag out the persons who instructed the gathering of those 'bulu-bulu' evidence.

If so, "padan muka" (serve them right), if my guess is correct, for doing things without knowing the law.

Cala: I read that the International Criminal Court based in Hague is taking action against Muammar Gaddafi for possible crimes against humanity.

Will the same court also consider taking action on the Umno-led BN regime for orchestrating nonsensical charges against an opposition leader who is considered a threat to the serving regime?

At issue here is not Anwar Ibrahim, but the interests of some 50 percent of Malaysians who are being short-changed because their choice of the next prime minister would most probably be made incapacitated due to this shameful trial whose charges are not founded on solid empirical evidence but on thin air.

Anonymous: Solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden said the trial within a trial should be held at the end of the prosecution's case just before the judgment is delivered. "This will prevent a lengthy trial within trial," he says.

It seems as if he's been instructed by somebody who wants to end the case as soon as possible.

Rick Teo: Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah is not qualified to be a judge. He proved that when he said that he was not concerned with how the evidence was obtained. This tantamount to mean that evidence obtained through fraudulent means is admissible in court. That certainly proves that he is not familiar with law.

P Dev Anand Pillai: Even in a rape, the issue of penetration is of paramount importance. That is one of the basics of criminal law. Being in the same category, sodomy too requires penetration, and that too with strong rigidity of the penis.

Was a rigidity test done on Anwar to see if he has what it takes to penetrate a male anus? Though all this may seem very gross but the charge is sodomy so the court has to consider all this.

Again it all boils down to the Malays, are they willing to allow this to happen again? When one amongst them stands up to disagree? Are the rest so compliant and submissive that they will immediately destroy the person who disagrees?

Come on you, Malay brethren, get up and say "enough is enough" and save your society from further ridicule.

Sick Negara: The facts of the case so far show that Anwar was arrested without any evidence of sodomy. They arrested Anwar to collect his DNA from the mineral water bottle, toothbrush and towel. With the DNA they proceed to fix the case. Unfortunately, Malaysians are tolerating such an injustice.

Anonymous_3db7: You can't simply take other person's DNA and tender it in court without consent. Simple as that. I learned it from CSI series.

Anwar to testify tomorrow in mini-trial

Justicekini: If the DNA were from the condominium or a hotel or other such places, only then would it carry weight. The learned judge, Mohamad Zabidin, you would look silly if you accept 'planted' DNA from the police cell.

If this how judgments are based, then justice is lost and buried. I can land up in a cell innocent for a drug offence but when a drug is planted, I'll still go to the gallows.

Ketuanan Rakyat: I think that in allowing the trial within the trial, the judge is trying to show himself to be fair. Will he be a fair judge? Your guess is good as mine.

In the end, for all the efforts put in by the 'ketuanan' Umnoputra-led government, the trial must go on and Anwar must be found guilty by hook or by crook. Be prepared for ruling of admissibility of the evidence.

Singa Pura Pura: The common law has always accepted that "a trial judge in a criminal trial has always a discretion to refuse to admit evidence if in his opinion its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value."

If what solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof said is right, that is to say, that such a discretion to exclude evidence is confined only to 'admissions' and 'confessions', then, going by the same line of authorities relied upon, it has to be equally true that the cases in which the trial judge is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained are confined only to those involving an 'agent provocateur'.

An examination of the long line of authorities, both English and Malaysian, will show that the point taken on the limitation of judicial discretion, vis-à-vis agent provocateurs, is quite beyond dispute.

Evidence from cell: Anwar walked into a trap?

Orang_gila_malaya: According to the answer by the cop, Yahya Abd Rahman, the lock-up will be cleaned after the detainee leaves. In this case, the lock-up was not clean but rather being locked up from being accessed by all others except the "assigned officers".

Is it a norm for our intelligent crime scene investigations unit to photograph the cell after the detainee leaves? If so, I guess Karpal Singh shall be asking for photographs of the cell after the earlier detainee have left. Why when it comes to Anwar, everything was photographed? - Malaysiakini