The appellants argue that the trial judge’s rejection of Zachary’s evidence was based on an unfounded inference of bias. They contend that the Crown did not raise the issue of bias in accordance with the rule in Browne v. Dunn, and it would be unfair to reject such evidence without any effort to impeach the witness or without any factual foundation to suggest bias.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.