- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:25 pm to Elcid96
quote:
hearsay is used all the time in a Grand Jury to indict people.
that's the vibe i get from DAs across the state
442 /s hearsay /s "grand jury" returns no results on my westlaw, either. also it's not in annotations
i'd think something so foundational would have at least a LA appellate case over the subject matter
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:26 pm to just me
quote:
just me
Ever been in on a Louisiana GJ?
Are "hearsay" statements part of the evidence entered?
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:26 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
It's like speeding when no one's looking.
well i was going to say this earlier, who is going to object at the presentation of possibly objectionable evidence?
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Please read the last two pages. It is not, technically.
hearsay is admissible in GJ hearings, though
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'd think something so foundational would have at least a LA appellate case over the subject matter
Once the ruling in Delcambre came out, there was no point for Courts to look any further.
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:27 pm to RobbBobb
quote:At least I know enough not to cite the Federal Rules of Evidence in a Louisiana criminal proceeding.quote:I thought it was because you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?
I thought it was because you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:28 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Do you know why?
Because you can't quash the indictment for use of hearsay.
Nope.
Any statements used in Grand Jury can be used at trial.
In order to avoid having a witness possible contradict his/her statements from the GJ to the trial process. It leaves a record that defense attorneys can attack. DA's can use hearsay to get in the statements for an indictment without building a record of the actual witness statement.
quote:
Still doesn't make it admissible
The statement made by the person on the witness stand in the GJ is not going to be the same one testifying at trial. The actual person who made the statement will come to trial.
This practice is used all the time.
This post was edited on 9/21/11 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:28 pm to USMCTiger03
quote:
It is not, technically.
but only HIGHLY technically
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well i was going to say this earlier, who is going to object at the presentation of possibly objectionable evidence?
ergo, a DA could indict a ham sandwich. No one can protest, until trial.
Grasping at straws
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:29 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Do you know what inculpatory; exculpatory means?
Yes, but apparently you don't.
And this case isn't in Federal Court.
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:31 pm to Elcid96
quote:
Any statements used in Grand Jury can be used at trial.
Whoa, back up. You are getting confused here.
Only in impeachment instances. You need to be clear on that.
quote:
In order to avoid having a witness possible contradict his/her statements from the GJ to the trial process. It leaves a record that defense attorneys can attack. DA's can use hearsay to get in the statements for an indictment without building a record of the actual witness statement.
But only in impeachment situations. Just because an inadmissible statement is rendered to the GJ, it doesn't get to come into evidence at trial.
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:32 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:We learned that CptBengal is completely full of shite and has zero integrity, but at least he's hugely entertaining when he tries to argue shite. He makes me smile a lot.
Any updates here? What happened today? TIA
We also learned that RobbBobb doesn't know anything about the practice of law, but at least . . . well actually there isn't anything redeeming about him.
Ohhhh . . . wait. You asked for updates. My bad.
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:32 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
And this case isn't in Federal Court.
So the same evidenciary rules dont apply?
quote:
Weinstein's Federal Evidence, 2d ed.
"Table of State and Military Adaptations of Federal Rules of Evidence." Rule-by-rule, identifies state evidence rules identical or similar to the federal rules for the 42 states (including Puerto Rico) that have evidence rules based on the FRE (excluding California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Virginia, and the Virgin Islands).
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:32 pm to Elcid96
quote:
The statement made by the person on the witness stand in the GJ is not going to be the same one testifying at trial. The actual person who made the statement will come to trial.
That's normally the case because they usually only questioning the investigating officer.
However, Moore has already said they are putting actual witnesses in front of the GJ in this case.
This post was edited on 9/21/11 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:33 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
So the same evidenciary rules dont apply?
No. The Louisiana Rules of Evidence apply to the Louisiana cases.
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:34 pm to just me
quote:
We also learned that RobbBobb doesn't know anything about the practice of law, but at least . . . well actually there isn't anything redeeming about him.
And you didnt even know that La. followed federal evidenciary laws, so much for your work near a law office
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:35 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
No. The Louisiana Rules of Evidence apply to the Louisiana cases.
Again. Sat in on a La. GJ? Ever?
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:37 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Whoa, back up. You are getting confused here.
quote:
Only in impeachment instances. You need to be clear
Correct...should of been cleared up.
quote:
But only in impeachment situations. Just because an inadmissible statement is rendered to the GJ, it doesn't get to come into evidence at trial.
It doesn't...but the statement will be made by the actual person who made it...not the person who testified in Grand Jury. Typically a DA might take a witness and give him/her a bunch of yes or no questions to kind of set the scene for the GJ. The witness can say stuff such as Antonio Moss told me he saw Coach Miles destroy the secret playbook of Crowton.
These statements are allowed in the GJ to indict Miles on these actions.
When trial comes...if he wants these statements entered into evidence, he has to call Antonio Moss/You to the stand. No these statements from the GJ won't be entered alone, because it is hearsay, however hearsay would of been used in the GJ to indict.
Posted on 9/21/11 at 2:38 pm to RobbBobb
Tons of hearsay in gj.
I am lawyer,prosecutor, and put cases before gj.
Except for death cases, we use gj to ditch cases....
I am lawyer,prosecutor, and put cases before gj.
Except for death cases, we use gj to ditch cases....
Page 14 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News