Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11491)	8/7/2003 4:32:19 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) of 14610

Most of the rules of evidence are based on notions of what types of evidence tend to be unreliable. The British legal system developed most of these concepts long ago, and the underlying idea is usually that the best situation is to have a jury from the community look into the whites of the eyes of the actual witnesses talking in public and in front of them, live, and make their own determinations about who is lying and who is telling the truth. The judge excludes such evidence only after determining that its relevance is outweighed by the potential prejudicial impact (such as allowing testimony about things which don't really tell you what happened but lead you to conclude that in other situations the person on the stand is a bad guy). The exclusionary rule is really an exception to the usual approach in that it excludes evidence that is relevant and reliable merely because of police tactics. I agree with you that the rule ought to be changed, but in cases like Kobe's, that rule is not likely to come into play anyway.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next