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

To: ReignOfError

“The full, unaltered, original document has to be entered into evidence. Allowing a doctored copy poses obvious problems. It should have been redacted before it was shown on screen, but the unredacted original should have been entered into the record. My money is on the court clerk dropping the ball.”

That may differ by state, I’m not a lawyer. I did however just finish six weeks of jury duty in TN and served on three juries. Every document introduced as evidence was reviewed by defense, prosecution and the judge. Redactions were made in the documents as far as irrelevant information


17 posted on 07/01/2013 1:55:01 PM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Figment

It’s entirely possible that’s the only redaction that goes on, in which case both parties and the judge should have caught this. I’m assuming that there is a difference between what goes into the record and the jury is allowed to see, and what is made public. I would expect — and I’m not a lawyer, either — the attorneys to focus on the former, and the court to see to the latter.


20 posted on 07/01/2013 2:20:54 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | 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