The jury in the Diarmuid Phelan murder trial was left unaware of key evidence
Dublin: So, there’s been a lot of buzz around the Diarmuid Phelan murder trial. Phelan, a law professor, was accused of shooting a trespasser on his farm. He always claimed he acted in self-defense, firing warning shots. In the end, the jury found him not guilty, but there’s more to the story.
After the verdict, Phelan didn’t show much emotion, but you could see him hugging his family. Meanwhile, the family of the victim, Keith Conlon, left the courtroom pretty quickly. It was a tense moment for everyone involved.
What’s wild is that the jury didn’t hear about some crucial stuff. For instance, during pre-trial hearings, Phelan’s defense team raised concerns about a court artist sketching him. They argued that he shouldn’t feel like he’s being watched all the time, especially given the threats he faced in the past.
The judge, Ms. Justice Siobhan Lankford, had to weigh in on that. She pointed out that the jury was already watching Phelan closely, so the artist wouldn’t add much pressure. It’s a strange situation, right? You’d think a courtroom would be a safe space, but it’s not always that simple.
Then there’s the backstory on Keith Conlon. The jury learned he had a history of violence, including a past arrest for burglary. But they didn’t get the full picture of his criminal record, which included some pretty serious stuff. It’s like they were kept in the dark about his past behavior.
And get this: there were secret recordings made during the trial. A member of the public was caught recording parts of the proceedings, but the jury wasn’t informed about it until later. They had suspicions, but the judge told them not to worry. It’s a bit unsettling, don’t you think?
As for the evidence, the jury didn’t know that when police searched Phelan’s home, they found not just the rifle used in the incident but also two sniper rifles. The prosecution argued that this was important for understanding Phelan’s familiarity with firearms, but the judge ruled it out. It’s like they were trying to paint a picture that wasn’t entirely accurate.
There were also videos shown to the jury, including some pretty disturbing footage of animal attacks. The defense wanted to show a video of a dog attacking a kitten, but the judge said no. It’s a tough call, but it raises questions about what evidence is relevant in a case like this.
In the end, the judge decided that the jury shouldn’t have the option to consider a lesser charge of criminal negligence manslaughter. She felt there wasn’t enough evidence to support that. It’s a complicated case with a lot of moving parts, and it’s clear that the jury didn’t get the full story.
So, that’s the scoop on the Diarmuid Phelan trial. It’s a wild ride, and it leaves you wondering about the justice system and what really goes on behind closed doors.
