- W Bagg
- July 23, 2012 - 21:05
well, I guess you cannot possibly convict anyone in New Jersey unless you have DNA. Beyond a reasonable doubt, REASONABLE, in my opinion, unless someone gives eyewitness testimony or DNA evidence exists, I couldn't convict anyone. Because reasonably, it could have been anyone else.
- July 23, 2012 - 11:56
"I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue." So, would an adherent to that principle prefer the silence of Joe Paterno to the verbal indignation of a Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher? Shame on those who would.
- July 23, 2012 - 10:47
Mike you are so right,
- July 23, 2012 - 08:33
what exactly are you jeering re: the New Jersey Supreme Court? Maybe you assumed people would read the "Jeers" next to the item and fill in the blanks? At any rate, if you're going to complain about something, it wouldn't hurt to explain what it is you find problematic. Eye witness accounts, without other evidence supporting them, have been shown to lead to false identifications and unjust convictions in courtrooms across North America and the Commonwealth. This isn't to say they should be excluded but they shouldn't be taken at face value. I fail to see what's so troublesome about judges instructing juries on the nature and reliability of eyewitness testimony. You might want to look into an issue before you make vague condemnations. Here's a start: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm or http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=101831 or http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm - took me a minute and a half to find those articles. It's called google.
- July 23, 2012 - 16:16
Maybe if some of these cases were brought before subject judge within days rather than years, witness testimony could and would stand. But defence lawyers know time dims recollection and too many hoodlums or murderers are set free. Keep that in mind too Judge.