Responding to accusations of sloppy evidence and lying witnesses at the appeal of convicted murderer Stanford Glenfield Archibald, the Crown yesterday argued that the trial judge in the case was correct in her instructions to the jury.

Archibald, 39, formerly of Somerset, denied killing Aaron Easton with a concrete block in May 1985, but was found guilty and jailed for life last July.

Easton?s body was found in a pool of blood on Laffan Street, Pembroke, in 1985. Archibald was arrested in 2001 when he returned from living in Scotland.

Earlier in the appeal, Archibald?s lawyer Mark Pettingill alleged the trial judge improperly directed the jury regarding the existence of a third vial of Archibald?s blood. The judge told the jury to apply a section of the Evidence Act which stated that, without substantiated evidence of that third vial, they could ignore the suggestion that it existed and had been used to plant evidence.

Mr. Pettingill suggested the judge led the jury to believe that section applied to whole defence case.

But Mr. Wolffe said the judge did not mention that section of the Act until more than 100 pages into her summation and that there had been an understanding that she was referring to only the mysterious third vial.

Mr. Pettingill had also suggested that testimony from Troy Shorter ? a man convicted of the murder of Roger Redman at Hayward?s Grocery in Warwick during an armed robbery in which Archibald was also involved ? was unreliable because he bore a grudge against Archibald, who he believed set him up for the Redman murder.

Shorter testified at the trial that Archibald has confessed to him in 1986 that he had murdered Easton.

But Mr. Wolffe said yesterday that while Shorter was indeed ?a bad character?, Mr. Pettingill did not challenge the evidence he gave of the confession during the trial ? an omission which Court of Appeals president Edward Zacca said he found ?very unusual?.

?So the jury was left with uncontested evidence, albeit from a convicted murderer,? Mr. Wolffe said.

And Shorter also told the court that he did not believe Archibald?s confession, Mr. Wolffe added. Had Shorter had ?improper motive? for taking the stand and wanting to get even with Archibald, it did not make sense for him to add he did not believe Archibald was guilty.

The judge directed the jury properly by warning them to treat Shorter?s evidence carefully in light of his character and background but refraining from telling them to disregard his evidence, Mr. Wolffe argued.

Mr. Pettingill had also challenged identification evidence from the trial.

But Mr. Wolffe said the witness in question gave description evidence and was not making an identification of Archibald.

The Court of Appeals will make its ruling on the case on Friday.