Pages

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Reality check

So an unnamed source suggests that Donald Trump told the Russians that he felt relief over the firing of James Comey and specifically stated that it was because the firing would ease the Russian probe.

Simple fact: An allegation printed in a newspaper would not be considered evidence in any criminal investigation. If that reporter was willing to testify to his or her belief that the source is telling the truth, it still would not matter. If the unnamed source stepped out of the shadows and was willing to testify to his or her beliefs that the statement is true as implied, it would still be inadmissible (unless that person was a first hand witness to that event). Even if the source witnessed the statement personally, the testimony of that witness would be subject to the many legal pitfalls of hearsay.

Hearsay; 
It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify. 
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.

I think it would be wise to garner some understanding of what is and is not admissible in a criminal investigation. When attempting to piece together a criminal case of "collusion" ask yourself how you would prove much of the media pushed allegations in court.

  • Do you have actual tangible evidence of the allegation. 
  • Do you have someone who witnessed the so called evidence firsthand? 
  • Would that person be willing or could that person be compelled to testify in court?

Just a quick "for instance" - If you were trying to prove that a conversation between a Trump associate and some random Russian diplomat was about hacking and election collusion... how do you go about it? The fact that there was a conversation itself proves nothing. You cannot "assume" something out of thin air. Recordings would have required a warrant. So would someone listening to the conversation in clandestine. Foreign diplomats generally have blanket immunity to things like subpoenas. An American being investigated or charged with a crime, cannot be compelled to answer questions or testify against themselves. So the only reason anyone would testify would be to deny the allegations.

Bottom Line:

Convincing a bunch of Trump haters that their preconceived notions about Trump are true, can quite easily be done with unnamed sources, unproven allegations, innuendo, and poorly reasoned circumstantial evidence.


But none of that actually makes a criminal case.

65 comments:

opie said...

So an unnamed source suggests that Donald Trump told the Russians that he felt relief over the firing of James Comey

And it also allegedly reported that the quote was taken by the official WH record. Toss in , there has been no denial from the WH concerning the veracity of the quote......How do you spell obstruction??? Lock him up!!!!! Your defense of trump is rather amusing for a non-trump voter.

opie said...

Another fox jag off fired for being stupid.....They are running out of talent....LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

KD, JOBS, keep creating them Mr Trump said...

The Problem the Left has is easy and understandable, Hillary Lost and Trump WON bigly, historically and without the help of the Demstream Media that back Hillary .

Winning Bigly overseas, bringing home 100's of Billions of Dollars and Thousands of Good Paying Jobs.

C.H. Truth said...

Opie

I have read lot's of different accounts of what possibly happened in that meeting... and the most logical is the suggestion that Trump has been using the Russian hacking and all of the investigations as a bargaining chip. That by firing the "nut job" who kept "grandstanding" in the media about the investigation, that he was doing the Russians a favor and that they owed him.

In that context the "pressure" would not be from the investigation, but from the fact that all of the "grandstanding" was driving a wedge between the two Parties (U.S.A Russia).

Under that context, it would seem that Trump was telling the Russians that he fired Comey for grandstanding the investigation (rather than firing him for investigating it).


Either way... whatever he said in that meeting was for the purposes of negotiations and diplomacy with the Russian team. It was not "under oath" and nobody can be sure what he meant or that he didn't just "make stuff up" as a tactic.

______


Which brings us right back to the beginning of why Hearsay laws do not allow anyone other than the person who made the statement to actually testify to what was said (and certainly to testify to the meaning).

That is why the reports in the newspapers are completely worthless to the investigation. T

But certainly completely effective in what they want to do... drive you and our ilk completely mad!!!

Roger Amick said...

I made my point earlier. This is proof of my interpretation of your no #nofaultTrump ® view.

Roger Amick said...

Real Reality Check.

The reasons hat anonymous sources in a criminal case is designed to protect the accused the right to see how is accusing him or her. so they can be questioned. innocent until proven guilty

That is completely irrelevant in political affairs. The anonymity has many times, proven that politicians said or did that put the nation at risk. The source of the New York Times was obviously in the staff. Not only that, the White House HAS NOT denied what he said.

You are sinking into the "Fake News" anti free press bs by Trump. He has been quoted stating he wished he could arrest journalists. For example, the Turkish police were allowed to beat protesters until they were in need of hospitalization. They had diplomatic immunity Neither Trump or his staff called this out of line.

Your acceptance of the "witch hunt" lie, shows again that your proudly self proclaimed objectivity is lost. He brought this upon himself with his lies, irresponsible, and childish behavior.

1: Birther for THREE FUCKING YEARS, and you accepted his acceptance with a 13 word withdrawal.
2: Wire tapping
2: Crowd Size
4: Biggest Electoral victory sine Reagan.
5: and many more, even you know how many there are.

You are looking more and more like there who thinks thee is a Soros funded liberal lie conspiracy meetings. The owner of the Washington Post is one of the most successful businessman of the last 40 years. Amazon? Woo is going to order on line!!!!

The person who told the journalist what he heard, is a patriotic American who sees from close up, how dangerous and irresponsible President Trump behaves. The Wall Street Journal had a story yesterday, where his staff tried to talk him into ceasing his tweets, because the President of the United States should not be using angry, 140 character comments on social media. Yet you don't object to that, You never point our one thing that you don't like what Trump does, but you will write 400 word diatribes against the one guaranteed right that has made this a democracy for 250 years,or so.

Roger Amick said...

Which brings us right back to the beginning of why Hearsay laws do not allow anyone other than the person who made the statement to actually testify to what was said (and certainly to testify to the meaning).

This is completely irrelevant in regards to journalism, something you are becoming incredibly irreverent.

Just once, post up on of your diatribes against Trump.

I won't hold my breathe

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I couldn't give a rip about the journalism. It's National Inquirer stuff as far as I am concerned. 90% of what is printed today would never have made it past the editor 20 years ago. You and I both know this to be true.

It's why only one in twelve trust the media. They have no standards anymore.

____

But riddle me this. What is the meaning, implication, or importance of a story like the one being told about Comey being "nut job" and being fired to "relieve pressure" if it's not an attempt to convince people that there are legs to the "Obstruction of Justice" case against Trump?

Either the story has relevance to real life or not. Because nothing the media says about Trump is ever going to convince most of the Trump voters to bail on him. For most of them, it's all the more reason to dig in their heels.

C.H. Truth said...

To be honest Roger, I couldn't give a bigger rip about crowd sizes, biggest election victories or any of that stuff. None of that effects my life in any manner shape or form.

What matters to me is seeing conservative justices confirmed, seeing the markets, consumer confidence, and economic indicators go up. What matters to me are the tangible things. What matters to Trump supporters is that border crossings are down 70% and arrests of illegals are up nearly 100%. What matters to them is that the flow of refugees from the nations listed on the travel ban has trickled down to almost nothing. What matters to many people is that we didn't allow Assad to cross the red line without consequences and that we have a President willing to pull the trigger on ISIS.

Not like Trump is blustering about how you can keep your health insurance, or how you will safe $2500 a year and pay no new taxes. Or that he openly lies about actual money changing hands with foreign entities, while he approves requests from those entities.

For someone who didn't believe being a serial liar about actual important things (H.R.C.) mattered... I find it odd that you should care about the bluster of things that don't really matter. You seem awful put off by a trait that all politicians have in excess.

Roger Amick said...

Which brings us right back to the beginning of why Hearsay laws do not allow anyone other than the person who made the statement to actually testify to what was said (and certainly to testify to the meaning).

Bullshit
Obama deported far more illegals than bush. Next lie?

So a liar as President who is impulsive, angry, ill informed, unable to understand the President is not El Furer. But he would have admired Hitler, like he does Putin and the Turkish police. You have lost it. Your love for the country is gone, It's all just fuck everything up as Trump would do.

You are going to watch the Republicans who put nation ahead of party and you won't like it. Like the anonymous source.And it would not pass back in he 70s. Think of DeepThroat. He sent Nixon into the helicopter and we need to see Trump to take the same last flight on Marine 1

Roger Amick said...

One more point, it's just speculation.

If Hillary Clinton, and Comey said he would not cease his have continued to investigate EmailGate, and she fired him for that, you would be all over Clinton, LOCK HER HP would be the new theme of your blog theme.

Trump is the biggest mistake the Republicans have made in my lifetime. Nixon resigned for a good reason. But his decision to open diplomatic relations with Red China was one of the smartest moves in the second half of the twentieth century. "Only Nixon could go to China" would be his legacy. Trump will never even come close. He got a gold necklace. But he's not going to have any success in he Middle East, He's too damn ignorant and unwilling to take enough time off Twitter to get up to speed as you and I are, and you just don't care.

Nixon's lawyer, John Dean is harshly critical of Trump. Because he sees some of he same paranoia that made Nixon to do really stupid shit, but worse, because Trump won't listen to anyone.

Loretta Russo said...

"Your love for the country is gone, It's all just fuck everything up as Trump would do." - The drunkard.

Unhinged lunatic.

James said...

Roger has your number, Ch. It is a delight to see.

James said...

MEANWHILE

A Republican Reckoning Is Coming

Erick Erickson: “Voters are increasingly dissatisfied with a Republican Party unable to govern. And congressional Republicans increasingly find themselves in an impossible position: If they support the president, many Americans will believe they are neglecting their duty to hold him accountable. But if they do their duty, Trump’s core supporters will attack them as betrayers — and then run primary candidates against them.

“It is becoming ever clearer that Trump has the potential to cause more damage to the Republican Party than Obama did the Democrats. While there is no doubt the Democrats saw serious electoral setbacks under Obama, there remains a key difference here: Obama is deeply respected and liked by a majority of voters. Trump is increasingly disliked, and the Republicans who enable him are increasingly distrusted.

“With a horde of vocal Trump supporters cheering on every inane statement, delusion, lie and bad act,* the majority of the American people can be forgiven for thinking the GOP as a whole has lost its mind. The Republicans may soon lose a generation of voters through a combination of the sheer incompetence of Trump and a party rank and file with no ability to control its leader.”

*This description fits Ch.
______________
Judgment day is coming. :-)

Commonsense said...

Except there is actual evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law and the only thing that kept the FBI from recommending indictment was James Comey.


James said...

The leaders of Bahrain never liked Obama because he insisted that they should improve on their human rights record, their mistreatment of dissident pro-democracy advocates.

Trump is signalling that they need not worry about that sort of thing form him. You can treat your people any old way, we won't complain, is the message he is sending them.

The Arab world understands. Their dictators fleece their people for the sake of their very wealthy. Trump fits that category. They know they can get along with that kind of leader.

James said...

*that sort of thing from him

James said...

House Inquiry Turns Focus to Trump Campaign Staffer
May 20, 2017

“Michael Caputo, who served as a communications adviser to the Trump campaign, has been asked by the House committee investigating Russian election meddling to submit to a voluntary interview and to provide any documents he may have that are related to the inquiry,” the New York Times reports.

“The House Intelligence Committee, which is examining possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, made its request in a letter on May 9. Mr. Caputo, who lives near Buffalo and spent six months on the Trump team, worked in Russia during the 1990s and came to know Kremlin officials. He also did work in the early 2000s for Gazprom Media, a Russian conglomerate that supported President Vladimir V. Putin.”
_____________

It's not going away.

James said...

China Crippled U.S. Spying by Killing Informants

“The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward,” the New York Times reports.

“Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.”
________________

No one is accusing Obama of revealing intelligence information to Chinese leaders in the Oval Office.

Commonsense said...

The leaders of Bahrain never liked Obama because he insisted that they should improve on their human rights record

Actually they knew Obama was a blowhard who never had the guts to backup his word.

They take Trump seriously.

James said...

Yes, they take seriously what I said:
The Arab world understands. Their dictators fleece their people for the sake of their very wealthy. Trump fits that category. They know they can get along with that kind of leader.

Commonsense said...

No one is accusing Obama of revealing intelligence information to Chinese leaders in the Oval Office.

Na, just gross negligence in handling intelligence.

How many of those operatives were compromised by Chinese penetration of Hillary's private email server or other government systems?

James said...

Ahem.
"Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources."

Commonsense said...

Yes, they take seriously what I said:
The Arab world understands.


It's ironic that you are on you high horse now when Obama kissed up to the biggest dictatorship in the region.

Iran.

Commonsense said...

Ahem.
"Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources."


The CIA that was lead and administered by Obama.

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

"...that was lead..." The word would be "led."

Now Ch will try to blame any failings of the CIA on Obama.
Knee slapping funny. That's called desperation. :-)

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

CS: Obama kissed up to the biggest dictatorship in the region.
Iran.

JAMES: He won a major diplomatic victory there that our real allies still applaud and the wisdom of which the recent Iranian election demonstrates.

Commonsense said...

CS: Capitulation is not a major diplomatic victory.

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't Trump nixed the treaty? Yet another broken promise. Wasn't that a Day One agenda item? Laughable.

james said...

Everything About Trump Was Predictable

Tony Schwartz: “Three decades ago, I spent nearly a year hanging around Trump to write his first book, The Art of the Deal, and got to know him very well. I spent hundreds of hours listening to him, watching him in action and interviewing him about his life. To me, none of what he has said or done over the past four months as president comes as a surprise. The way he has behaved over the past two weeks — firing FBI Director James B. Comey, undercutting his own aides as they tried to explain the decision, disclosing sensitive information to Russian officials and railing about it all on Twitter — is also entirely predictable.

“Early on, I recognized that Trump’s sense of self-worth is forever at risk. When he feels aggrieved, he reacts impulsively and defensively, constructing a self-justifying story that doesn’t depend on facts and always directs the blame to others.”

rrb said...

It's all just fuck everything up as Trump would do.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

well, let's see alky...

gorsuch sits on the ussc

unemployment is falling sharply

consumer confidence is WAY up

the markets are roaring and the investor class is making $$$

egypt freed an american prisoner

and the list goes on.

if that's the way trump is fucking things up, i hope he continues to fuck things up for a very long time.

like CH said, it's the tangible things; things that matter to an average american that are important. and trump is dealing with those things. you blather on about crowd sizes and irrelevant shit only an idiot in the grip of TDS would care about.

so carry on. it's fun watching trump drive you mad. please continue to take trump literally while those of us who are sane and rational take him seriously.

Commonsense said...

Why hasn't Trump nixed the treaty?

Because the treaty was front-loaded and US & European allies already fulfilled their part.

They lifted all sanctions and unfroze all Iranian assets.

The only thing left is for Iran to uphold their part of the deal and we all know how that is going to turn out.

james said...

Rouhani Wins Re-Election In Iran

Foreign Affairs: “Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been reelected in a landslide, winning 57 percent of the vote and defeating the hard-line cleric Ebrahim Raisi who received only 39 percent. A record number of Iranians showed up at the polls—41 million or 73.5 percent of all eligible voters.

“It is difficult to say, however, what is more significant about Friday’s election: Rouhani’s landslide victory and the stronger mandate he has now received or the decisive defeat of Raisi and the Islamic hard-liners who worked tirelessly to oust Rouhani. The distinction is important. Not all those who voted for Rouhani did so because they supported him. Many cast their ballots simply to stop the hard-liners from taking control of the government and to reject Raisi, an Islamic judge with a dark past.”
______________________
Only Trumpistas wanted the hardliners to win, just to make Obama look bad.

Commonsense said...

Rouhani Wins Re-Election In Iran

The handpicked candidate of the mullahs "won", a victory for democracy. (/sarcasm)

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

opie said...

Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo
May 21, 2017 at 7:52 AM
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo
May 21, 2017 at 7:52 AM
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo
May 21, 2017 at 7:53 AM
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo
May 21, 2017 at 7:53 AM
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo
May 21, 2017 at 7:54 AM
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo
May 21, 2017 at 7:54 AM

The definition of stupidity is saying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. But we can depend on the twat, to practice what she preaches......LOL at the idiot.

Commonsense said...

You mean like LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLLOLOLOL?

opie said...

Commonsense said...
You mean like LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLLOLOLOL?

Feel better, jag off?????

james said...

I didn't know the mullahs wanted the hardliners to lose. Is Islam becoming more progressive -- other than among the Saudis and their ilk?

Loretta Russo said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo.

Commonsense said...

I've said before that I am not a historian and that when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust, it is the historians that should reflect on it.

Hassan Rouhani, moderate Holocaust denier.

Loretta Russo said...

"Hassan Rouhani, moderate Holocaust denier"

The pedophile loves him.

Birds of a feather....

opie said...

Loretta the moron Russo said...
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
May 21, 2017 at 9:00 AM
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
Spam by the pedo.
May 21, 2017 at 9:00 AM
The pedophile loves him.
Birds of a feather....
May 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM

Feel better twat??????

opie said...

Trump hates muslims as he bellies up to the king with a bow.....and the twit marches on in her little world of spam by the pedo genius comments. LOLOLOL

Loretta Russo said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

C.H. Truth said...

If Hillary Clinton, and Comey said he would not cease his have continued to investigate EmailGate, and she fired him for that, you would be all over Clinton,

Roger...

Have you stopped beating your wife? If I was beating my wife, you would tell me to stop it. You're such a hypocrite!


Herein lies the problem Roger. I don't believe Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, especially considering firing Comey wasn't going to end "any" investigations.

My humble opinion is that he got sick of the fact that his FBI director was in the public spotlight more than a Kardashian. That he probably wanted to fire him for some time, and that the most recent public debacle was the last straw.

Either way, it's the President's right to fire the FBI director, as that person serves at the pleasure of the President. He technically doesn't require a reason.


james said...

McMaster Won’t Say If Trump Brought Up Meddling

President Trump’s national security adviser declined to say if the president confronted Russian officials about the country’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election during a meeting at the White House earlier this month, telling ABC News “there already was too much that’s been leaked from those meetings.”

Said McMaster: “I’m really concerned about these kind of leaks because it undermines everybody’s trust in that kind of an environment where you can have frank, candid and oftentimes unconventional conversations to try to protect American interests and secure the American people.”
_______________

“there already was too much that’s been leaked from those meetings.”
____

Isn't Putin now offering us a transcript?

Loretta Russo said...

The pedophile doesn't have a church anymore.

Told you so.

opie said...

Loretta Russo said...
The pedophile doesn't have a church anymore.

Which means what. And neither do you, so fucking what!!!! Dipshit trump lover.

wphamilton said...

CH asked, But riddle me this. What is the meaning, implication, or importance of a story like the one being told about Comey being "nut job"?

It's not what you're expecting, but it occurs to me that Comey may be able to make a civil case of slander against Trump because of this. The question would hinge on whether Comey in his position as lead of the Russian investigation is a "public figure" who has also thrust himself into public controversy in that capacity (required for that defense).

I was wondering if it may rise to the level of seditious libel, since Trump did libel the FBI by representing the head as a "nut job", and by implication the FBI as pursuing it's mandate investigating the Russia connection. It doesn't really rise quite to that level, IMO, but ironically some of the press, by imputing criminal intent to Trump with insufficient proof, does technically become seditious libel. It's just common law and not enforced in the USA however, so this is all a digression spurred by your question.

Loretta Russo said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

wphamilton said...

CH, your last paragraph prior to "Bottom Line" asks how do you go about proving collusion between Trump associates and Russian agents. You seem to assert that their private conversations, even if recorded, are useless because the parties could simply deny them.

That's a little odd IMO, because recordings are admissible in criminal court. Even if they speak in only general terms and utilize "code words", once this is interpreted in the context of other evidence and a pattern of behavior, at the least criminal intent can be established. My point here is that many Trump defenders tend to point to hypothetical bits of specific evidence and rhetorically ask "how does this prove anything". Your answer is, the body of evidence will prove guilt, not one hypothetical conversation with a "random diplomat".

The Special Counsel (previously known as Special Prosecutor) has only just begun. I caution you against making snap judgments as to his discoveries at this early point.

Loretta Russo said...

"I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason or for no reason at all."
--James Comey, May 10, 2017

james said...

The pedophile doesn't have a church anymore.
Told you so.
_______________

True, the pedophile probably doesn't.

But I do. Service from 10:15 to ca. 11:15 am. Preached on "Jesus' Attitude Toward Women," very different from that of the Saudis in our day or the Jews of Jesus' day. Or people in this country, earlier.

Loretta Russo said...

Liar

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I am not offering my opinion. I am offering the definition and known pitfalls of "hearsay".

I am also not for sure how you get from my assertion that a newspaper article citing an unknown source is evidence... to the strawman argument that I suggested "recordings" are not allowed as evidence.

And I would completely disagree with your assertion that a "body of evidence" can be accumulated through the collective source of individual items that cannot be independently verified as being true.

If you submitted a request to a judge to admit 5000 pieces of evidence, and the Judge admits none of them... then your case is no stronger than someone who submits a request to a judge to admit one piece of evidence, and the judge says no.

Ultimately no Judge is going to allow Newspapers articles citing unnamed sources to be entered as evidence, just because there are a whole bunch of them that all happen to point to the same sort of conclusion.

In terms of this discussion... only those stories that can be independently verified to be true, based on known sources willing to testify and known documents that can be presented as evidence.

Even in those cases, the actual stories (and conclusions made by authors) are irrelevant. The only relevant piece would the tangible content of what those stories suggest (assuming such content exists) and can be verified.

EG: The case of the Russian meeting. The stories are not claiming that any "recordings" were done... but that there was some sort of meeting documentation written down. I am not privy to how these sorts of diplomatic meetings would go, but I would guess that most foreign diplomats would be uncomfortable attending a meeting with the President and high ranking officials with a recording device sitting on the table, or some administration assistance sitting in the background taking notes. So not sure exactly what sort of documentation there would be.

But I would think that the most credible piece of evidence in any criminal procedure or investigation would the the eye-witness testimony of those who were actually at the meeting. The entire problem with "Hearsay" is not understanding the context and demeanor of what was being said. How can you document for instance "sarcasm". What if there was a period put at the end of a statement that should have had a question mark. etc, etc...






C.H. Truth said...

I think the clearest way to look at it would be this...

If the defense of prosecutor would not be privy to "cross examine" the original source of a statement or document... then that information would be considered hearsay.

If there is a document to what was said in a meeting, but I can get statements, question, and cross examine those who were at the meeting, the document would likely have little impact. The testimony of those at the meeting would carry weight.

As we know, there are times when people tell an investigator one thing, then take the stand and say something completely different, while under oath. What they say on the stand (under oath) would take precedent to what they told the investigator prior (although I am sure that sort of testimony becomes less trustworthy).