- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"In what kind of trial..."
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:34 am
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:34 am
I've heard this phrase thrown about a lot, especially in the context of "in what kind of trial are there no witnesses."
I'm wondering in what kind of trial the jury gets influenced by hearsay information not on the record that is introduced in the midst of the defense opening arguments.
I'm wondering in what kind of trial the jury gets influenced by hearsay information not on the record that is introduced in the midst of the defense opening arguments.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:38 am to timdonaghyswhistle
In what kind of trial is the defendant told he must prove his innocence?
That's been said verbatim by many Democrats.
That's been said verbatim by many Democrats.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:40 am to timdonaghyswhistle
In what kind of trial is hearsay your only evidence?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:41 am to Aristo
They've established that if you get enough people to agree with the hearsay it's perfectly acceptable.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:43 am to timdonaghyswhistle
If these were criminal charges a judge wouldnt even sign the damn warrant
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:44 am to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
"in what kind of trial are there no witnesses."
A show trial
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:45 am to Aristo
quote:A non-judicial, political proceeding in which the evidentiary rules are not applicable.
In what kind of trial is hearsay your only evidence?
I posted the following on another thread some time ago, and a few people found it helpful. Maybe the same will be true for you.
quote:.
you must remember that this is NOT a judicial proceeding and that (while there are some analogies) it is NOT a criminal prosecution.
The arguments we have been hearing for three days and WILL be hearing for another three days are NOT “evidence.”. They are each side’s summaries of the hundreds of hours of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence already “admitted“ in the House.
There is an underlying assumption that each side will highlight that portion of the House record which best serves its own purposes. The Senators are presumed to have access to the entire record. Incidentally, reliance upon the House record is one reason that the unfair Dem practices in the House were so problematic.
The whole “witness” issue in the Senate thus has two branches.
The first ties to the Dems. They had every chance to call witnesses in the House, so it seems reasonable to limit them in the Senate to only witnesses or testimony which (for whatever reason) was not available to them during House proceedings.
The second ties to the GOP. Normally, they should be subject to the same standard, but the Dems basically precluded them from developing evidence in the House, so there is a decent argument that they should have greater leeway in the Senate.
Thus, two questions arise. First, do they even NEED witnesses? Davy addressed that question quite well. The second question is whether the less-zealous-for-Trump Senators are willing to hear from witnesses of questionable direct relevance.
In a real legal proceeding, the single question would be whether Trump had objective evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens when he requested help from Ukraine, but of course this is not a legal proceeding. Set that aside for a moment.
If we use that standard, I think ALL GOP Senators would vote in favor of testimony from a new witness who had been suppressed by the Dems but who provided Trump a pre-Zelensky-call briefing about Biden wrongdoing. However the Bidens themselves have nothing to add on that point. Thus, there is a dispute among the GOP as whether to allow their testimony
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:46 am to Ash Williams
quote:
If these were criminal charges a judge wouldnt even sign the damn warrant
Unless it’s a FISA court
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:46 am to timdonaghyswhistle
"in what kind of trial" does the lead prosecuting attorney also serve as a fact witness?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:Basically?
The second ties to the GOP. Normally, they should be subject to the same standard, but the Dems basically precluded them from developing evidence in the House, so there is a decent argument that they should have greater leeway in the Senate.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 11:51 am to Ash Williams
quote:
If these were criminal charges a judge wouldnt even sign the damn warrant
Apparently a FISA Judge would!
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:04 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
In what kind of trial..."
Does the jury get to approve what witnesses the defense can call?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:07 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
Every post on this thread simply demonstrates that the impeachment process is not a judicial process.
We might as well complain that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in Congressional Committee hearings.
We might as well complain that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in Congressional Committee hearings.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:09 pm to AggieHank86
I understand this not a "typical trial" so could both sides please dispense with the "what kind of trial" BS. That was my point.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Every post on this thread simply demonstrates that the impeachment process is not a judicial process.
We might as well complain that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in Congressional Committee hearings.
That's not really an astute observation.
Everything about it is more analogous to one than it is anything else.
Hence, you don't really get to pick and choose which particular aspects are and which aren't, and think you're saying anything meaningful.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:16 pm to AggieHank86
I guess the biggest question, at least to me, is are they allowed to conduct new discovery during the trial. Because, that would basically be what they are trying to do by bringing in new witnesses.
Also, would the Senate be able to kick the proceedings back to the House if it is determined that new witnesses should be called forward?
I realize it's a presumption, but would this also mean the Senate would have access to all of the testimony that was conducted in the bunker that the House Reps were unable to review?
Also, would the Senate be able to kick the proceedings back to the House if it is determined that new witnesses should be called forward?
quote:
Senators are presumed to have access to the entire record.
I realize it's a presumption, but would this also mean the Senate would have access to all of the testimony that was conducted in the bunker that the House Reps were unable to review?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:19 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
There will be witnesses.
Ill give you 2 to 1 odds now that the bolton draft is out.
Ill give you 2 to 1 odds now that the bolton draft is out.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Every post on this thread simply demonstrates that the impeachment process is not a judicial process.
No not a typical one, but it uses terms like 'trial', 'high crimes', 'misdemeanors', it has a 'judge', and these are terms that are shared with the criminal justice system. Because it uses terms of this nature it seems to me that it is intended to be more than a popularity contest for the Congress to judge. We have this thing called an 'election' for that.
So, we have this thing that is neither fish nor fowl. It's rarely used and therefore precedent for its operation is thin. It's like exploring barely charted territory. If we had more practice, we'd be better at it but this is a thing we have been loathe to practice at. Unfortunately, it looks like the appetite to practice it is growing, and that is not good.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:58 pm to CelticDog
quote:
Ill give you 2 to 1 odds now that the bolton draft is out.
Some guy writes some book and wants to hawk how "informative" it is. "You'll have to read the book."
"Evidence".
Posted on 1/27/20 at 12:59 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
An impeachment trial.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News