JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Video: Dallas Motorcycle Cop H B McClain Interviewed In Dallas 1998
Duncan MacRae:
Dallas Motorcycle Cop H B McClain Interviewed In Dallas 1998
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_S7-awJp74
Lance Payette:
EEK, he's a CTer! The questions weren't too well-organized, but what a GREAT witness - exactly what any lawyer would want.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 02, 2026, 01:11:35 PM ---EEK, he's a CTer! The questions weren't too well-organized, but what a GREAT witness - exactly what any lawyer would want.
--- End quote ---
McLain offered no evidence of a second shooter, only his speculations. Some witness.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 02, 2026, 01:30:38 PM ---McLain offered no evidence of a second shooter, only his speculations. Some witness.
--- End quote ---
He was only asked for his opinion. Sorry the answers didn't go the way you would have liked. I'm sure you loved his answers about the acoustical evidence. Where he would be a lawyer's dream as a witness is (1) his demeanor, which pretty much screams credibility; (2) he answers only what is asked in the most straightforward manner and doesn't expand or speculate; (3) and I simply love his no-BS folksy disdain for the questions, as though the entire exercise is just a bit silly. Because you are not a lawyer - keep reminding yourself of that, please - and have not seen how badly even carefully prepared witnesses can perform at a deposition or trial, you have no appreciation of how great this guy is. Sorry the answers didn't go the way you would have liked - oops, I repeated myself!
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 02, 2026, 03:47:53 PM ---He was only asked for his opinion.
--- End quote ---
Opinions of non-expert testimony is only allowable if it can reasonably concluded from what a witness observed. McLain did not observe the shooting.
Federal Rule of Evidence 701 (Lay Opinion Testimony)
Under FRE 701, a non‑expert witness (a “lay witness”) may give an opinion if it is:
Rationally based on the witness’s perception (what they personally saw, heard, or experienced) LII / Legal Information Institute+1.
Helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue LII / Legal Information Institute.
Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge — that type of opinion must be given by an expert under FRE 702 LII / Legal Information Institute+2.
For example, a witness might say, “The man looked angry when he saw the victim” or “The car seemed to be going too fast for the wet road” — these are admissible because they are grounded in firsthand observation and helpful to the jury uslawexplained.com.
What’s Not Allowed
Opinions that rely on specialized training, technical methods, or professional standards (e.g., “This handwriting is forged” without expert analysis) are not lay opinions and must be given by an expert www.forensisgroup.com+1.
Special Caution: “Human Lie Detector” Testimony
In criminal trials, courts are especially wary of testimony that functions as a human lie detector — for example, a witness saying, “I think the defendant is lying” about a specific statement. Such testimony is generally inadmissible because it undermines the jury’s role in assessing credibility United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
State Law
Most states follow a version of FRE 701 in their own rules of evidence. Ohio’s rules mirror this framework, so the same principles apply in state criminal trials.
Bottom line: Lay witness opinions are allowed in criminal trials if they are rationally based on firsthand perception, helpful to the jury, and not disguised as expert analysis. However, certain types of opinion — especially those implying truthfulness or falsity about specific statements — are excluded to protect the jury’s role in credibility determinations
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version