Ruling on Murder Case by Judge Suffering From Dementia Will Stand, Court Says

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

The judge is only 54 and she has my greatest sympathies.


The article says that he was convicted in 1999, but in the next paragraph it says that the judge went on medical leave in 2019 and was diagnosed with dementia in 2020.


I had a friend who was driving his company car home drunk, crashed into a neighbours car across the road from where he lives. He crawled out of the car then ran home yelling that someone else was driving and ran away. The neighbours were actually about to get into their car and saw everything, called the cops and had him charged. His flatmate (a real rocket scientist) told him he should drink some scotch so when the cops arrive he could say he was in shock and needed something to calm him down and that would explain the alcohol in his system, so he starts swigging scotch from the bottle. Cops arrive give him the breathalyser and he gets a high range reading. He went to court and the prosecutor read out all the charges and the evidence against him, basically an open and shut case. The judge looks up and asked if that was all they had to go on and the prosecutor looks baffled and replies Yes. The judge then calls Case dismissed and that was that. The insurance agent was in the courtroom and nearly fainted. Everyone was confused as to what had happened, but basically my friend got a free pass. A week later the same judge has another weird episode where there was damning evidence and he went to dismiss it but this time it was for a violent robbery offence and the police strongly opposed it. There was an investigation and sure enough the judge had dementia and was stood down. My friend was contacted by the police to say they were going to go for a retrial, this would mean he would lose his job, pay for all the damages etc he was basically fucked. The cops contacted him about two weeks later saying they were not going to contest his case, apparently in the last six months the judge had made lots of strange calls BUT most were in favour of the police. If they started retrials there were a lot that might go against them so the let it go.


Tipsy coachman rule: he got to the right conclusion anyway?