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

To: Howlin

Thanks for the background.

"I have thought from the very beginning that having the blueprints of WTC would have helped them determine their fuel load and approach."

They (rats) can plan their actions based upon what was 'discovered' by the comission. Isn't that standard operating procedures to let the other side know your evidence? If that was changed, and the defense or procesution could spring on surprise evidence, would that be a good or bad thing? I don't know that answer, asking legal minds out there.


11 posted on 06/18/2004 6:52:42 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Indy Pendance; Torie

Indy, I'm not smart enough to argue the law; my only point was that the Clinton administration made a HUGE mistake when they tried them as criminals. That gave them all kinds of "rights" I don't think they deserved.

Maybe Torie will bring us up to speed on your questions.


16 posted on 06/18/2004 7:00:02 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Indy Pendance

The rules of discovery are very different in civil as opposed to criminal cases. In civil cases, you can only hide evidence up to a point, that is used for impeachment purposes, and then only from third party witnesses typically. The criminal case rules are totally different, and since I don't do criminal law, thank heavens, I cannot be of much help. But my vague impression, is that the prosecution does have to turn over much of its evidence beforehand, but not all, and I am not sure how the two categories are divided, and the defense does not have to turn over anything.


98 posted on 06/19/2004 9:40:25 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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