Video: Dallas Motorcycle Cop H B McClain Interviewed In Dallas 1998

[Duncan MacRae]

Dallas Motorcycle Cop H B McClain Interviewed In Dallas 1998

[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]

EEK, he's a CTer! The questions weren't too well-organized, but what a GREAT witness - exactly what any lawyer would want.

McLain offered no evidence of a second shooter, only his speculations. Some witness.

[Lance Payette]

McLain offered no evidence of a second shooter, only his speculations. Some witness.

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]

He was only asked for his opinion.

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

[Lance Payette]

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

Oh, dear God, this man has lost it. Folksy H. B. was not testifying at all. He was sitting in his office chair humoring some characters who had asked to interview him 25 years after the JFKA. Obviously - DUH - he would not have been permitted to offer opinions such as he was asked to offer in an informal interview. That was my point: You said he had "offered no evidence, only speculation." I responded that his speculation had been invited by the interviewers. DUH.

Because I try to be helpful, I might suggest that you (1) stop assuming the role of Pretend Lawyer with someone who spent 40 years in the practice of law, because you aren't going to accomplish ANYTHING but making yourself look silly, and (2) stop peppering the forum with inane knee-jerk posts that rather strongly suggest you have no other life.

[John Corbett]

Oh, dear God, this man has lost it. Folksy H. B. was not testifying at all. He was sitting in his office chair humoring some characters who had asked to interview him 25 years after the JFKA. Obviously - DUH - he would not have been permitted to offer opinions such as he was asked to offer in an informal interview. That was my point: You said he had "offered no evidence, only speculation." I responded that his speculation had been invited by the interviewers. DUH.

Because I try to be helpful, I might suggest that you (1) stop assuming the role of Pretend Lawyer with someone who spent 40 years in the practice of law, because you aren't going to accomplish ANYTHING but making yourself look silly, and (2) stop peppering the forum with inane knee-jerk posts that rather strongly suggest you have no other life.

You were the one that suggested McLain would have made a great witness and now you want to retreat to saying he was not testifying. You can't have it both ways. McLain's statement which wasn't taken under oath is not in any way evidence of a second shooter. Not only that, he would never be allowed to speculate about a second gunman if he was placed on the witness stand because he would be offering an opinion about something he had not observed. Even a layman like myself could figure that out. It seems like that should be obvious to a lawyer of 40 years. If you think McLain would have been a lawyer's dream, just what do you think he would have been allowed to testify to that would have helped make the case for a conspiracy? Why do you think a lawyer would want him?