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

To: Colorado Cowgirl
No, the scum should have been put away on the DNA evidence by itself and not risk the case getting tossed and the scum walking free, which is what may happen here.
18 posted on 08/09/2011 4:59:29 AM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: org.whodat
If the DNA evidence was available (and if he forced her to get an abortion, which is pretty common, it wouldn't be), a jury is still going to want live testimony. You'd be surprised how many jurors are suspicious of scientific evidence all by itself, with no framework.

And there's also the matter of the defendant's right to be confronted by the witnesses against him. The Child Hearsay Rule has been enacted in many states to sidestep this, but in some jurisdictions the victim still has to take the stand. And, again, many jurors want to hear from the victim before they'll convict.

You can never predict how an appeals court is going to rule, but it seems to me that allowing the dog in the witness box is along the lines of allowing the victim to testify behind a screen so she doesn't have to look at the perp, or allowing her mama or sister to sit next to her -- especially with children, the trial judge has a lot of discretion in controlling his courtroom and directing the examination of witnesses. At least he does around here.

40 posted on 08/09/2011 8:39:08 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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