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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (16257)	1/22/1998 3:35:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I believe one of the Hearsay exceptions (and there are a BUNCH of 'em) is to prove perjury. But how could the unsupported testimony of only ONE person prove anything at all? And why, in this case, should it be admissable? I can envisage a case in which ten people swear that the eleventh told them the same compromising thing (though even so there's the danger of collusion, as--to use a reverse and not precise example--when five witnesses offer an alibi for an organized crime figure). But one on one? I vaguely recall that one exception is when the person being quoted by hearsay is dead, and so cannot profit from the evidence, but taht ain't the case here.