Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11467)	8/7/2003 3:18:19 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

well, I didn't invent the rules. But I do agree with some of the exclusionary rules. Well, except for the ones that keep out the evidence I want to offer.<g>

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11467)	8/7/2003 3:25:13 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Laz, When you (next) commit a criminal offense, rest assured that all evidence against you will be admitted. We are sure you won't want it any other way. <g>

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11467)	8/7/2003 3:44:12 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

The rules of evidence are designed to filter out unreliable evidence. Hearsay isn't allowed, because the person who said the thing offered is not in the courtroom to be cross examined and have his/her credibility evaluated. Only certain types of criminal convictions are allowed to raise an issue of the witness's credibility, and even then convictions in the distant past aren't allowed. Evidence of prior settlement or plea discussions is inadmissible because of the policy to encourage settlement negotiations. It may not all make sense on first blush, but there really is a rationale behind it.