[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: