Such a defense would get laughed out of court, unless the defendant could provide some evidence for his claim.
The defendant then has the constitution right to demand the evidence supporting Barrack Obama's legitimacy be provided to the defendant for forensic review.
No, he wouldn't. The defendant couldn't go on a fishing expedition for evidence- he would have to show evidence of his claim before any court would let him do anything.
Such a defense would get laughed out of court, unless the defendant could provide some evidence for his claim.
The defendant then has the constitution right to demand the evidence supporting Barrack Obama's legitimacy be provided to the defendant for forensic review.
No, he wouldn't. The defendant couldn't go on a fishing expedition for evidence- he would have to show evidence of his claim before any court would let him do anything.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I would argue this point poorly. Edwin Vieira who has been a constitutional attorney for 30 years and holds 4 degres from Harvard can argue the point quite well. He in fact is the source of the concept I passed on. You would do well to examine his learned opinion before pretending you know what you are talking about.