[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders



SPierre (spierre@aol.com) wrote:

: I'm afraid you just don't a basic concept:  not all evidence must
: presented by a living human "witness".  If evidence IS provided by a
: witness, then of course you have certain rights, such as
: cross-examination, etc.  

I believe I have enough "basic concept" to know the difference between an 
accusation of a crime and the evidence used to support that accusation, 
enough to know the difference between witnesses and evidence.  Under what 
"basic concept" is the right to cross-examine one's accuser taken to mean 
the same thing as the right to "cross-examine" their evidence?

: Under your mistaken understanding, though, it would be impossible to
: convict someone, for example, for most white-collar crimes (well, no one
: actually SAW him sign that check/illegally transfer those funds/etc.); or
: how about a bank surveillance camera recording someone breaking in?  In
: these cases, you cannot obviously cross-examine the fraudulent check or
: the surveillance camera.  Yet documents, videos, skid marks (ever try to
: cross-examine a skid-mark or a blood stain??) are considered evidence. 

Checks, cameras, documents, videos, skid marks, blood stains, etc. don't 
just walk into court and get themselves admitted into evidence.  They 
must be introduced in support of testimony given by a human being, and 
will be admitted into evidence by a judge only if he or she finds that 
they do in fact support that testimony.  No check, camera, document, 
video, skid mark or blood stain has ever "accused" anybody of anything, 
at least not in any court in this country.

As others have already pointed out, you can't be convicted because a 
radar gun "says" you were speeding.  The radar read-out can only be used 
to support the testimony of the policeman who says he saw you speeding.  
Under our Constitution, unless the policeman testifies that he actually 
saw you break the law, you can't be convicted no matter how many radar 
gun read-outs you are "accused" by.  That's why the policeman has to 
show up in court; under your "rules" he would be allowed to mail in the 
evidence and let you confront it instead of him.

I "cannot obviously cross-examine the fraudulent check;" I cannot, 
even subtly, cross-examine any check.  But until a check stands up in 
the witness box and testifies "I am fraudulent," I have no need to.  I 
do have the absolute right under the Sixth Amendment to cross-examine 
the person (witness) who makes the claim that the check (evidence) was 
written fraudulently.

: Sorry if this comes as a suprise.  It would be a sad day for justice if
: only personally-presented evidence (in the form of cross-examinable
: witnesses) counted.

Sorry if this comes as a surprise, but it's that day already.  Only 
"personally-presented" evidence (presented in conjunction with and in 
support of the testimony of cross-examinable witnesses -- I remind you 
again that evidence and witnesses are not the same thing) does count.  If 
it isn't in support of testimony, it will not be admitted.  It isn't just 
"evidence" because it's there, it has to be evidence OF something.  It 
has to be evidence of something which has been asserted by a witness.

But it will be a sad day indeed when a person can be convicted of a crime 
based on an "accusation" made by evidence standing alone, rather than 
based on an accusation made by a person and supported by their evidence.  
It will mean that our Constitution and the entire canon of English common 
law on which it is based no longer have any force.  It will mean that you 
and I are no longer living in a country with a meaningful Bill of Rights.

: This is a completely different subject than the original (also incorrect)
: argument about "just cause".  I suppose you couldn't refute my argument on
: that issue, so you moved on to an equaly incorrect argument about
: confronting the witness.  Keep trying -- try another issue.

Well, I didn't propound "the original... argument about 'just cause';" 
that was someone else.  Nor did I "move on" to my defense of the Sixth 
Amendment; it just came to me when I read your original post.  Keep 
trying -- try addressing my arguments instead of disparaging someone 
else's; I'm the guy who's arguing that there's a distinction between 
witnesses and evidence.

--
Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc. (elandau@cais.com)
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." -- Abbie Hoffman


Follow-Ups: References: