Honestly? In a case as important as this, it's hard to know what to do. But if someone who's NOT in jail can't have hear-say as permissible evidence, then people in jail shouldn't be able to submit gossip as evidence, either. Offering a plea bargain for someone as "incentive" to get them to "talk" is really suspicious, too.
In my 10 years of security, I briefly worked as a Turnkey/Auxilliary Police Officer in a very small municipality in north St. Louis county. Many prisoners would offer information much of it bogus in an attempt for leniancy. The problem was and still is that you have no way of knowing if you are getting 100% of the truth. The prisoner self interest should exclude his testimony as there is no verifiable way of determining it's validity.
If there is no way to independently verify information, it shouldn't be used. Another case is the recent flap over the Duke lacrosse players and Mike Nifong, who is currently being sued by the three formerly accused. In this case, it is painfully clear that the case was pursued only because Mike Nifong was courting the black vote for re-election.
3 comments:
Honestly? In a case as important as this, it's hard to know what to do. But if someone who's NOT in jail can't have hear-say as permissible evidence, then people in jail shouldn't be able to submit gossip as evidence, either. Offering a plea bargain for someone as "incentive" to get them to "talk" is really suspicious, too.
In my 10 years of security, I briefly worked as a Turnkey/Auxilliary Police Officer in a very small municipality in north St. Louis county. Many prisoners would offer information much of it bogus in an attempt for leniancy. The problem was and still is that you have no way of knowing if you are getting 100% of the truth. The prisoner self interest should exclude his testimony as there is no verifiable way of determining it's validity.
If there is no way to independently verify information, it shouldn't be used.
Another case is the recent flap over the Duke lacrosse players and Mike Nifong, who is currently being sued by the three formerly accused.
In this case, it is painfully clear that the case was pursued only because Mike Nifong was courting the black vote for re-election.
Post a Comment