Skip to comments.
Ramos attorney calls for mistrial
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| Fevbruary 20, 2007
| Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on 02/20/2007 2:31:57 AM PST by Man50D
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 last
To: calcowgirl
I'm sorry, when you asked me for a link, I thought you were asking about "some say".
The link to the transcripts have been posted many times but since I like you, I will chase it down.
To: Ben Ficklin
To: calcowgirl
To: Ben Ficklin
Well I'll be! Sutton coughed up the missing testimony.
He must have added that recently as it certainly wasn't there with the initial release.
Thanks!
Will he be coughing up the missing Sanchez and Blanchette testimony in the near future?
84
posted on
02/21/2007 11:53:52 AM PST
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: montag813
Where did you get the idea that courts have traditionally given wide latitude to undermine a witness' credibility? In fact the opposite is the case under the federal rules of evidence. Under rule 608, the the evidence used to attack the credibility of a witness may only refer to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. This does not include possession of marijuana, as was alleged in this case regarding the 2nd drug incident. Additionally this may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.
This is not "wide latitude" as you claim, but rather can be used only for limited purposes. The case law follows the restrictive nature of the federal rules. It is not as wide open as you mistakenly think.
85
posted on
02/26/2007 8:00:04 PM PST
by
erton1
To: editor-surveyor
There was no criminal conviction of the witness in this case. Rather it is alleged acts, and in the 2nd incident it based on double hearsay and inadmissible under the federal rules of evidence. Even if the evidence is admitted by the judge, it is up to jury to attach whatever weight to the evidence that they choose. They can believe all, some or none of the witness' testimony in their own discretion. In this case, even after hearing of the immunity agreement and the over 700 lbs. of drugs in the witness' van, it is obvious that they believed the witness rather than the agents. Don't you wonder why?
86
posted on
02/26/2007 8:28:13 PM PST
by
erton1
To: erton1
I'm going to find out who you are.
To: editor-surveyor
Another witty retort from editor-surveyor. LOL
88
posted on
02/27/2007 7:23:57 AM PST
by
erton1
To: erton1
Retort? No, it's a mission.
To: editor-surveyor
Should I be worried yet? ooowwww scary!!
90
posted on
03/03/2007 9:59:46 AM PST
by
erton1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson