Posted on 11/13/2019 2:23:03 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants
Democratic Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley claimed during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing that hearsay could be better than direct evidence.
Quigley, while questioning Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor attempted to make the case that their impressions of secondhand information could potentially be more valuable than direct evidence of what had occurred.
“I guess to close, a primer on hearsay, I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay,” Quigley said. “Because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Quigley is auditioning for a job with CNN and the New York Times.
I just heard it to. Just now heard it. It must be true.
Someone told me who's name I can't say said that Mike Quigley put the puppies on a stick and eat them.
I’m not a lawyer, but I just looked up exceptions to hearsay. They all mostly seem to revolve around someone saying they heard someone else say something. For example, “I heard the defendant confess to the crime.” No one is even stating they heard Trump say anything, are they? Isn’t it more like “I heard somebody say they heard somebody else say something?” In other words, rumors.
Water Cooler Impeachment
I am a lawyer, you are correct. There is no exception that covers the hearsay statements we are seeing today - they would not see the light of day in a federal courtroom. But this is Pelosi’s playground, no rules except to win at all costs.
I wanna know who those people are!
IDIOT!
Pursuant to s 4(1) of the Act, a hearsay statement is a statement made by someone other than a witness (in the proceedings) that is offered to prove the truth of its contents. Under section 17 of this Act a hearsay statement is generally not admissible in any court proceeding.
Hearsay - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Hearsay
IDIOT SQUARED!!!\
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. ... In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.
Hearsay Statements in Criminal Court | Nolo
https://www.nolo.com › legal-encyclopedia › hearsay-criminal-cases
243 years of Jurisprudence says he’s wrong...................
But he’s a democrat...….
There are a bunch of exceptions to the general rule that hearsay is not normally admissible as evidence.
Quigley, down under.
I was like, DAYUM. There is no end to their lies
I was like, DAYUM. There is no end to their lies
I think he means “circumstantial” evidence. But “hearsay” isn’t even admissible in most cases.
I hear the Demrats roll their shit into little
balls. Rep Quigley eats those little balls of shit.
My source, who is now protected by Super Secret Whistleblower status, says that Mike Quigley makes the mother of the puppies watch as he roasts them and eats them. It’s true as true can be!
He must have gone to the same law school as Michael Cohen, Thomas Cooley Western Michigan U, the worst law school in the US.
This type of “justice” is exactly what a lynch mob does.
Isn’t there hearsay evidence that Virginia Kruta tortures animals an little chilun?
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.