Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
You fail to understand some basic facts one which was to charge him with assault Lessie Johnson would have had to testify. If she did not want to do so then the best that they could do at that time would be to charge him with burglary

Forgive me for not reviewing post #38 again but - if I remember correctly - the Supreme Court in its 1971 review - found that the State, in effect, stipulated that the home was unoccupied at the time of the crime. Was it necessary to concede so much if Ms. Johnson refused to testify...and if so why?

128 posted on 02/04/2004 10:15:40 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: liberallarry
Was it necessary to concede so much if Ms. Johnson refused to testify...and if so why?

Yes. Because of the way our legal system works. There was only one witness, one accuser if you will. The police report is pure hearsay without her testimony, given in court, at the trial, with the accused present.

Hearsay or third party reporting is not allowed in court.

132 posted on 02/07/2004 9:13:12 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Don't heat distilled water in the microwave. This has been a public service announcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson