Replies

You seem to be confused about the difference between totality of the evidence and the reliability of witnesses.

You seem to be extremely confused about what you think I'm confused about.

A specific witness is not the issue--but if that witness lies, that's fini for the guy's testimony, IMNHO.

This was the counsel that lied. That gives me pause to question the entire case, not just one witness.

Just because one side puts on a witness who a juror feels is not reliable does not mean that you can throw out any old evidence that you don't wish to consider.

If the evidence is being presented by someone who's been caught lying, the evidence is essentially worthless.

Jurors must consider ALL of the evidence. Jurors may, however, make judgments as to the reliability of the witnesses and their testimony by considering things like bias, motivation to fabricate, prior inconsistent testimony, prior consistent testimony, and whether the witness was capable of observing the scene accurately.

And when counsel lies, I need to consider WHY a particular witness was put on the stand--i.e., what was the counsel's bias, motivation to fabricate, et cetera.

Do you see the magnitude of difference here? When an officer of the court attempts to lie to the jury and gets caught, there's ground for questioning every single element of that side's case.

When an officer of the court attempts to lie to the jury and gets caught, there's ground for questioning every single element of that side's case.

Your assertion is legally incorrect. The jury will be instructed to take into account testimony of the witnesses. Attorneys are not witnesses, and what they say or do may not properly be considered.

This was the counsel that lied. And this tactic was discussed before as a way to get all of the porn before the jury, so they could see that the 'questionable' ones amounted to a very small percentage of the total. So they could see that most of it was not anything like CHILD RAPE porn. So the jury could see the WHOLE TRUTH and not just what the Prosecution wanted to SELECT to make their case, and the JUDGE had therefore keep out of court.

It is very possible that the REASON he did it was to do what he gets paid for. Do everything possible to WIN the case for his client.