Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Regardless of whether Sandusky is guilty (and it's not looking good for him), this is a very troubling decision for several reasons; e.g., handing the defense grounds for appeal, and the danger of setting a precedent thereby.

Would love to hear FReeper thoughts on the matter.

1 posted on 06/14/2012 8:14:25 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Slings and Arrows

The alternative: No credible witness = no crime?


2 posted on 06/14/2012 8:18:39 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini--nevertheless, Vote Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows

Will Whoopie Goldberg come to Sandusky’s defense and say that “it wasn’t really rape-rape?”


3 posted on 06/14/2012 8:22:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows

Is his evidence really needed? I’d think all the other evidence should be enough to nail him.


4 posted on 06/14/2012 8:31:03 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows
assuming you're a lawyer....

is that slippery slope abrasive or feeling good on your “fat” ass?

If I was a real lawyer...I would have left out Fat ass...Heaesay~

5 posted on 06/14/2012 8:33:44 PM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows

Hope they lock this monster away for the rest of his sorry life.


7 posted on 06/14/2012 8:38:27 PM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a “startling event”. It is an exception to the hearsay rule.

Because the janitor has dementia he is legally unavailable to testify. His statement to the other janitor were admitted under the “Excited Utterance” exception to hearsay.

While hearsay is generally not admissible because it is deemed inherently unreliable, their are many exceptions where hearsay can legally be admitted and this is one of them. The “excited” nature of the “utterance” is response to a startling even is deemed to make the otherwise hearsay statement more reliable. See Federal Rule of Evidence 803:

http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=598:evidence-excited-utterance&catid=56:scofflaw-sling-bar-review&Itemid=65


9 posted on 06/14/2012 8:51:11 PM PDT by oldernittany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows
Regardless of whether Sandusky is guilty (and it's not looking good for him), this is a very troubling decision for several reasons; e.g., handing the defense grounds for appeal, and the danger of setting a precedent thereby. Would love to hear FReeper thoughts on the matter.

Whether he is guilty? Are you serious? I hope the dudes in prison dispose of this garbage the hard way.

10 posted on 06/14/2012 8:54:37 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Slings and Arrows
Regardless of whether Sandusky is guilty (and it's not looking good for him), this is a very troubling decision for several reasons; e.g., handing the defense grounds for appeal, and the danger of setting a precedent thereby. Would love to hear FReeper thoughts on the matter.

Whether he is guilty? Are you serious? I hope the dudes in prison dispose of this garbage the hard way.

11 posted on 06/14/2012 8:54:56 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson