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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (820165)	12/1/2014 10:50:58 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By PKRBKR Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586390

You are totally confused. It isn't about him having a "right" to testify. The prosecutor runs the show. If he has no objection to the guy testifying then he can do so. WTF? If the prosecutor had said, "No, you may not testify" then he would have had no right to demand it. That did not happen. In this case, the reason for the existence of the grand jury in the first place is that the prosecutor wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety. So, instead of merely making a decision -- as he could have done, he chose to put ALL evidence before a grand jury and allow them, an independent body, to decide whether the guy should stand trial. And that's what he did. Part of the evidence was Wilson's testimony. The prosecutor WANTED that evidence included in the interest of fairness. How is this so complicated? Not having a "right" to testify doesn't mean you cannot testify. It means if you are denied the opportunity to testify then you don't don't have a right to demand it. Sheesh.