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 (11491)	8/7/2003 4:32:19 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11491)	8/7/2003 4:41:33 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Your case, er, you meant the one you were referring to. Ah, let's see. Criminal case, involving possession of presumably large amounts of marijuana. You didn't mention whether it was a state or federal prosecution, so I'll assume federal. Ah, let's see. The jury probably didn't hear about the circumstances of this being a medical grow operation because the federal statute doesn't recognize the right to cultivate marijuana for one's own use? Therefore, the underlying circumstances were most likely deemed not relevant by the Judge, since the government did not have to prove that the pot was not grown for medicinal purposes, and the fact that it was grown for medicinal purposes is not a defense to a federal possession or trafficking charge. The search for truth and justice has nothing to do with this one bud. Is there something I'm missing?