erynthered Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Thoughts on this? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422274880 http://www.slate.com/id/2168758/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Since I'm generally a law abiding citizen I look at this as another indication that the pendulum has swung far to the side of protecting the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Thoughts on this? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422274880 http://www.slate.com/id/2168758/ Eh - another precursor to one-party rule...Lenin smiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Since I'm generally a law abiding citizen I look at this as another indication that the pendulum has swung far to the side of protecting the criminal. I can agree with that. I'm wondering what the 5 or 6 attorneys on this board think about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Since I'm generally a law abiding citizen I look at this as another indication that the pendulum has swung far to the side of protecting the criminal. What pendulum? It's never swung anywhere but in favor of criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 What pendulum? It's never swung anywhere but in favor of criminals. If you believe in our justice system, then you understand it has to. We're far more afraid of condemning the innocent than we are of letting the guilty go free. As to the "hot-word" ban -- it's bullschitt. The "probative vs. prejudicial" value of evidence has always been considered by judges -- that's why certain photos are kept away from the jury, for example -- but it's hard for me to come to grips with a rape victim not being able to say she was raped during her testimony. It's the defense attorney's job to persuade the jury it wasn't rape. Hopefully a federal court will get this eventually and slap the state court judges around a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 So instead of murder it's going to be "he hurt him to the point where the other person's heart and brain functions ceased."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 If you believe in our justice system, then you understand it has to. We're far more afraid of condemning the innocent than we are of letting the guilty go free. As to the "hot-word" ban -- it's bullschitt. The "probative vs. prejudicial" value of evidence has always been considered by judges -- that's why certain photos are kept away from the jury, for example -- but it's hard for me to come to grips with a rape victim not being able to say she was raped during her testimony. It's the defense attorney's job to persuade the jury it wasn't rape. Hopefully a federal court will get this eventually and slap the state court judges around a bit. Right. It's not the witness on the stand who has to have no opinion and to refer to themselves in the third person.... Their testimony is what makes them an important part of determining the truth. It's the jury or the judge who has to sort out which combination of facts and personal testimony is right. I'd like to see witnesses sue in federal court all the way to the Supremes if need be and these judges punished for violating the First Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Defendants and their lawyers should not be able to use word "innocent" too. It has conotations too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I don't mind it overall. A lot of times people are too stupid to get past their own emotions, including those associated with a word such as rape. This pisses me off though... And there's another problem underlying Cheuvront's order: Jurors will not be told of it. Not only is the "dangerous" language to be hidden from them, but the fact that it's been hidden will be concealed from them as well. They are not merely too emotional to hear the phrase rape kit. They are also evidently too emotional to know it's been hidden from them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Thoughts on this? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422274880 http://www.slate.com/id/2168758/ Idiotic. I can even see the point - the definition of "rape" has gotten more and more slippery over the past several years, to the point that I know someone from college who was nearly convicted of rape because the women consented to sex while drunk and regretted it the next morning. But it's still idiotic...her testimony is just that: HER testimony. Witness and victim testimony is not and will never be objective, factual evidence, but will ALWAYS be subjective. Trying to rule otherwise from the bench is, I believe, a gross violation of not only common sense but courtroom procedure - if a witness testifies she was raped, it's the defense's job to cross-examine her to attempt to discredit the claim, and not the judge's job to pervert or prevent the witness's testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts