Over 300 Classified Emails on Hillary's Server & Counting...
Comments
-
You need to educate yourself with the definition of "hearsay" evidence.2001400ex said:Death, you just upvoted a post agreeing with my post. Since you are the attorney, you know that you essentially upvoted my post. I like it.
-
Not sure how that applies. Watch a few more episodes of law and order and you might get it.d2d said:
You need to educate yourself with the definition of "hearsay" evidence.2001400ex said:Death, you just upvoted a post agreeing with my post. Since you are the attorney, you know that you essentially upvoted my post. I like it.
Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In certain courts hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.
For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness' answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is trying to prove not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act.[1][2]
The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact. Language of commercial offer and acceptance is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance.
Double hearsay is a hearsay statement that contains another hearsay statement itself.
For example, a witness wants to testify that "a very reliable man informed me that Wools-Sampson told him." The statements of the very reliable man and Wools-Sampson are both hearsay submissions on the part of the witness, and the second hearsay (the statement of Wools-Sampson) depends on the first (the statement of the very reliable man). In a court, both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible. In this example, the first hearsay also comes from an anonymous source, and the admissibility of an anonymous statement requires additional legal burden of proof.
Many jurisdictions that generally disallow hearsay evidence in courts permit the more widespread use of hearsay in non-judicial hearings.
I think this is more of logic. If a=b and b=c, then a=c. But you keep grasping at legal definitions you have no knowledge of. -
I would whack it with sandpaper to Betty and Veronica before hitting Hilary.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Hillary wasn't horrible looking 25 years ago
Probably would have hit
Maybe not since I was a kid reading Archie comics at the time..
-
PurpleThrobber said:
I would whack it with sandpaper to Betty and Veronica before hitting Hilary.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Hillary wasn't horrible looking 25 years ago
Probably would have hit
Maybe not since I was a kid reading Archie comics at the time..
Ouch!PurpleThrobber said:
I would whack it with sandpaper to Betty and Veronica before hitting Hilary.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Hillary wasn't horrible looking 25 years ago
Probably would have hit
Maybe not since I was a kid reading Archie comics at the time.. -
How many anti-government hypocrites does it take to be outraged that Hilary didn't use a gov't server for her email -- but instead used a private server?
-
OZONE said:
How many anti-government hypocrites does it take to be outraged that Hilary didn't use a gov't server for her email -- but instead used a private server?
