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

To: ladtx; All
Of course... even if he is innocent, he MUST not say anything, legally, until he knows first IF there will be any charges, and then WHAT the charges are.

There is a neat little trick in the law where evidence admitted to prove one thing can then be used to prove something else -- even if, originally, the evidence would not be allowed for that purpose. Does that make any sense to you? Even if he is innocent, he must not say anything, because his words can be taken and then used (twisted) to prove an unrelated point.

To avoid a legal mess, he must not say anything relevent to the case -- if there is in fact a case -- until he knows exactly what it is "he is dealing with".

127 posted on 10/03/2003 12:11:05 PM PDT by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Darth Reagan
I have yet to see an actual law talking guy (with credit to Lionel Hutz) weigh in on this thread. What say you?
136 posted on 10/03/2003 12:15:07 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | 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