Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Hearsay?  (Read 666 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2019, 09:12:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. But even so, I guess that the prosecution would object because they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses. Just wondering what the legal scholars have to say about this.

they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses

Why?

If you are really saying that accepting the 26 volumes would have precluded the prosecutor make his own case then you have just given the best reason ever for not letting the 26 volumes in.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2019, 09:12:22 PM »

Offline Charles Collins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2019, 09:33:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses

Why?

If you are really saying that accepting the 26 volumes would have precluded the prosecutor make his own case then you have just given the best reason ever for not letting the 26 volumes in.

Why?

The actual evidence and witnesses would have to be in the courtroom in order for the prosecution to examine it.


If you are really saying that accepting the 26 volumes would have precluded the prosecutor make his own case then you have just given the best reason ever for not letting the 26 volumes in.

I am asking. Just guessing that that could have been a reason.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5204
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2019, 11:54:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. But even so, I guess that the prosecution would object because they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses. Just wondering what the legal scholars have to say about this.

I think you?re right. The Warren Report and Hearings/Exhibits could not be cross-examined.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2019, 11:54:44 PM »

Offline Charles Collins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2019, 12:58:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you?re right. The Warren Report and Hearings/Exhibits could not be cross-examined.

Yes, but we are accustomed to the proceedings of actual trials. A preliminary hearing is somewhat different. And that might be why the defense even tried to introduce the 26 volumes. I am only guessing and asking whether or not this makes legal sense.

Online Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2019, 05:34:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, but we are accustomed to the proceedings of actual trials. A preliminary hearing is somewhat different. And that might be why the defense even tried to introduce the 26 volumes. I am only guessing and asking whether or not this makes legal sense.
The judge probably asked The NYTimes what they thought, so hearsay it would be

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2019, 05:34:35 AM »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
    • SPMLaw
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2019, 02:31:52 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On page 178 of ?Truth Withheld? by James T. Tague, he states that in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were grounds to bring Clay Shaw to trial, that the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense. But it was denied as hearsay.

I am guessing that the reason for this has to do with the requirements of how evidence has to be introduced. But I would like to know what the legal scholars have to say about this. Do we have any knowledgeable legal eagles here that want to respond?
The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay.  It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.

Offline Charles Collins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2019, 08:38:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay.  It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.

Thanks, that explains it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hearsay?
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2019, 08:38:26 PM »

 

Mobile View