re: Ranters Want a Redemption Story: You Just Might Get It

quote:

---

Let's start with simple concepts and work our way toward the more difficult.

First, if Lowery were to be charged and he needed to make a defense, what would Long be called?

Second, what would Long be called if she faced charges, but made a deal with the DA to avoid those charges?

Third, prior to Federal Rule of Evidence 607 when could a party impeach a witness under federal law.

Fourth, what does it mean when a witness is identified with a party?

Fifth, what criteria were considered to determine if a witness can be treated as a hostile witness?

Many law professors prefer the Socratic method when schooling their students.

---

Your arrogance is astounding, but not as astounding as your ignorance. I'm going to respond as tersely and with as much courtesy as I can muster, then I am going to exit this thread. You seem to be befuddled. First of all, if Long were facing charges, she would be a defendant, which ipso facto would tranform her from a "third-party" into a "party." However, she isn't facing charges, which means she isn't a party to the underlying proceedings, but rather a non-party, or third-party, as that phrase is commonly used. Second, you are badly conflating two entirely distinct issues: (a) whether a witness is a third party; and (b) whether a witness is adverse to one of the primary parties. Those are not identical questions. As I stated, a third-party witness can be and often is adverse to one of the parties. They can be cross-examined with leading questions and treated as hostile by an examining attorney. Nonetheless, they remain third party witnesses. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that any witness who is adverse to one party or the other is thereby excluded from the category of third party witnesses. That's simply not so.

The proof is in the pudding. I've identified a credible source that defines third party witness just as I have suggested. I challenge you to find any source which defines the phrase "third party witness" with respect to bias. You won't.

P.S. Your supposedly brilliant deduction that Jefferson won't face second degree battery charges also seems to have been proven incorrect, given the reports that he is, indeed, facing second degree battery charges. Setbacks on every front in your quest to prove yourself a virtual Wigmore.

quote:

---

a defense witness.

---

Good. That's right. She is a defense witness. She is identified with the defense.

Now suppose that defense counsel tried to impeach her using rules prior to the enactment of Federal Rule of Evidence 607.

quote:

---

First of all, if Long were facing charges, she would be a defendant, which ipso facto would tranform her from a "third-party" into a "party." However, she isn't facing charges, which means she isn't a party to the underlying proceedings, but rather a non-party, or third-party, as that phrase is commonly used.

---

You ignored the first two questions. It's okay; I understand why you did it.

quote:

---

Second, you are badly conflating two entirely distinct issues: (a) whether a witness is a third party; and (b) whether a witness is adverse to one of the primary parties.

---

Now see, this is where we get to the heart of the matter.

First, it is you who are trying to confuse two issues and ignore a third. I never said she was a third party. She is a third party. (For the record, third party is more generally used in civil cases, but let's not bring in a fourth issue.) Whether she is a third party is irrelevant to her status as a witness. She is clearly adverse to Jefferson, and now we're getting closer to the proper analysis because, more importantly, she clearly can be identified with Lowery.

Second, prior to the enactment of Federal Rule of Evidence 607, a party could not impeach his own witness under federal law. The same general rule applied under state law although the specifics of the rule varied under the myriad jurisdictions. One of the tests to see if a witness could be impeached (or examined with leading questions, or treated as a hostile witness) was whether the witness could be identified with a party. A witness who could not be aligned with or identified with a party was a third party witness. Some of the criteria for determining whether a witness could be identified with a party was whether the witness had a direct bias or interest that could be aligned with the party at issue.

Third, people who spend time in a courtroom use terms like plaintiff witness, defense witness, state witness, and third party witness on a regular basis. The terms are shorthand but have clear meaning.

For example, imagine a car accident. A driver runs a red light and t-bones another car. The spouse of the driver was a passenger in the car. I don't know any attorney or judge who would call the passenger spouse a third party witness; although, the passenger spouse would clearly be a third party to any civil or criminal trial. However, a pedestrian who observed the accident would certainly be called a third party witness.

Similarly, imagine the paramour of a combatant in a fracas. She might be called many things, but I don't know any court personnel who would call her a third party witness.

quote:

---

The proof is in the pudding. I've identified a credible source that defines third party witness just as I have suggested.

---

No. Your source makes no reference to a third party witness. It merely references a third party.