Posted on 07/12/2002 7:06:01 AM PDT by MizSterious
I'm reading from the affidavit talking about 2/4. Was there a second date when Hopi went in? I'll keep reading, I just wondered. From the affidavit:
Additionally, on 2-4-02, sometime around 2000 hours a search and rescue canine was utilitzed to check for a scent outside of Westerfield's motor home.....The canine did not alert nor display any interest in the location. However, it was discovered during an interview with Westerfield that he had just completed an approximately 250-mile trip in the motor home. The freeway wind could remove a scent from the exterior of the vehicle.
Does that remind anybody else, of high school girls? (No offense intended, gals)
This is the general rule most people go by:
REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm
This article deals with "moral certainty'.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.htm
Here's another very interesting article:
http://gopher.princeton.edu/~mddavis/doubt.html
An exerpt from another site:
"A 'reasonable doubt' is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. In the event you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt after considering all the evidence before you, and these instructions, you will acquit him and say by your verdict 'Not guilty'."
http://www.txmca.com/geesadct.htm
Hope this helps a little.
If you like that one, you'll love this part:
http://library.lls.edu/Perjury14.doc
CALIFORNIA LAW
The California code also contains numerous perjury statutes. The most important sections are Penal Code §§ 118, 118a, 119-126, 128, and 129. The basic perjury provision is Penal Code §118. It covers perjury committed in a wide variety of circumstances, including preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, depositions, legislative hearings, and statements made before a notary public.[1] Another perjury section with broad applicability is Penal Code § 118a, which applies to affidavits. There are also many perjury statutes that are limited to narrower circumstances. For example, Government Code § 1368 addresses perjury made during a public officer's oath of office.
The requirements for perjury under § 118 are: 1) the person either takes an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, or testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury; 2) California law authorizes an oath to be administered or the testimony, declaration, deposition or certification is permitted by California law to be made under penalty of perjury; 3) the person wilfully states as true any matter which he or she knows to be false; and 4) the statement is material. The elements under §118a are 1) the person swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies in an affidavit taken before a person authorized to administer oaths; 2) that he or she will testify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person in a particular manner or to a particular fact; 3) in such affidavit wilfully states as true a matter which he or she knows is false; and 4) the statement is material.
There are several notable aspects to California perjury law. One is that prosecutions under Penal Code § 118 can be made for statements, testimony, declarations, depositions, or certifications made or subscribed outside of California.[1] Another is that recantation of false testimony is not a defense to a charge of perjury. However, it can be considered as evidence as to whether the defendant intended to testify falsely.[2] Also, California has departed from the two witness rule. Until 1969, Penal Code § 1103a[3] required that perjury be proved by the testimony of at least two witnesses or one witness with corroborating circumstances. Proof can now be established by direct or indirect evidence, although evidence based solely on the testimony of a single person is still deemed insufficient.[4] These evidentiary requirements are currently codified at Penal Code § 118(b).
The penalty for perjury committed under §§ 118 or 118a is two, three, or four years in state prison.[5] A person convicted of perjury may also be fined up to $10,000[6] and is excluded from being able to serve in public office or on juries.[1] In addition, perjury procuring the conviction and execution of an innocent person is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.[2] Perjury during trial may also be used as an aggravating factor when a defendant is being sentenced for another offense.[3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cal. Const. art. VII, § 8(b).
[2] Cal. Penal Code § 128 (West 1988).
[3] See Dalton, supra note 33, § 20.07 at 20-51-20-52.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cal. Penal Code § 118(a) (West Supp. 1999).
[2] See Dalton, supra note 33, § 20.05[J].
[3] Repealed by Stats.1989, c. 897, § 29.
[4] See generally Witkin, B. E. & Norman L. Epstein, 2 California Criminal Law §§ 1195-1199 (2d ed. 1988).
[5] Cal. Penal Code § 126 (West 1988).
[6] Id. at § 672 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Dalton, Douglas, West?s California Criminal Law § 20.02 at 20-11-20-14 (1995).
Mind you, I look at dogs as tools and not proof. But even on 2/4, the comforters had been removed and DW had engaged in self-admitted cleaning.
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.