|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 17:55:24 GMT -5
It's probably poor form to call your own victory, but Balls, you have been OWN3D!!!!!
Totally WEAK dude....WEAK!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 17:58:20 GMT -5
Did you read the quotes I posted? Shut up already.
The woman picking the guy out of the lineup is EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. It was the same woman. Again, "We have previously recognized that the testimony of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility (see People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982])."
You can stick your head in the sand and declare victory all you want, but the bottom line is eyewitness testimony, by itself, CAN convict someone of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 18:06:12 GMT -5
Eyewitness identification is one of the most potent and effective tools available to police and prosecutors. It is compelling, and time after time, it convinces juries of the guilt of a defendant. The problem is, eyewitness identifications are WRONG at least 50% of the time! Read about the real-life victims of faulty eyewitness identification and see what experts have to say on this subject. www.truthinjustice.org/witness.htmand this is exactly what the mitchell report has done it shouldn't have named names.. it should've come up w/ an actually resolution but naming names w/ not %100 fact is horrible work
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 18:08:12 GMT -5
I read the snippets you posted in an attempt at trickery by taking them out of context. And guess what, unlike you I read the whole summary of the cases that YOU attempted to use as supporting examples...and they refute what you claim. Ridiculous. You missed the boat BADLY on this one. Did you skip the Critical Thinking course and just moved straight to berating the witness lessons?
I'm not sticking my head in the sand. As a matter of fact, I'm already on record as stating that I am inclined to agree with Grimsley, McNamee and even Radomski, who is the least credible of the three. But what is listed in the Mitchell report is not enough to warrant the wholesale dismissal of stats, records, and team/player accomplishments that you're calling for.
The lawyer is wrong about the law. Ridiculous!
OWN3D!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 18:15:16 GMT -5
But I should have learned now that is is pointless to argue with someone who refuses to believe that the earth is round.
Balls, we all know it's coming...so /insert your last word here/
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 18:16:45 GMT -5
You can write own3d all you want, but the snippets are the law. Holy crap--the conviction was even upheld. You are actually arguing that eyewitness testimony of the same eyewitness is corroborating evidence.
You've been shown flat out that you are wrong, with several examples. Even in cases where the convictions were overturned, that doesn't change the LAW which does NOT prohibit convictions based on solely eyewitness testimony.
That is ABSOLUTELY possible.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 18:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 18:20:56 GMT -5
please stoppppppp
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 18:22:16 GMT -5
The conviction was upheld in only ONE of your examples, and it was upheld because there WAS additional evidence aside from the testimony. Again, I had the courtesy to actually read (do you know how to read? ) the "evidence" you posted and it clearly states that additional evidence existed...that additional evidence corroborated the witness testimony. The witness testimony IS what the conviction was based on, but that testimony was absolutely not without supporting evidentiary corroboration. RIF - Reading Is Fundamental dude...I suggest you look into it. You're the kind of guy who glances at the headlines and claims to "read the paper" daily. OWN3D!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 18:28:19 GMT -5
It's amazing how you can act like you did something brilliant, yet the law says you're wrong.
"We have previously recognized that the testimony of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility (see People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982])."
The above is law.
Don't question someone's ability to read when you have failed to get that sentence more than once.
It doesn't get more on point than that.
In general, there is nothing to prevent the testimony of one eyewitness from being the sole reason a jury convicts a defendant.
As is the case with almost any legal principle, there are exceptions, and the funny part is, you found one of them, and it might arguably apply here, at least with Clemens and Pettitte and a few others, but your blanket statement is just wrong. And that's what I take issue with.
It's amazing how you are wrong, and arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 18:37:24 GMT -5
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 18:42:50 GMT -5
Grover--that picture is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 14, 2007 18:46:07 GMT -5
you need to post the girls picture too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 18:52:28 GMT -5
You are truly clueless.
The statement was that testimony must be corroborated with other independent evidence. The testimony itself can be the guilt-determining factor, however that testimony must be corroborated. In your example the testimony was corroborated and you're either too stupid to have read that far, or too arrogant and wrapped in being "right" to recognize that there is a caveat to your example (hopefully the latter is the case).
I provided you not only a laundry list of examples, but a means to view infinitely more examples stating such: in order for testimony to support a conviction it must be corroborated with independent evidence.
You posted an example containing CORROBORATED testimonial evidence that supported a conviction and basically turned around and said, "See...you don't need to corroborate the testimony to convict." Ballzaro World!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:02:53 GMT -5
And again, the statement you are making is wrong. What part of "we have previously recognized that the testimony of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility" don't you get?
In general, you do NOT need to corroborate evidence--one witness alone can be enough to convict. You seem to be talking about a general rule, not an exception to that rule. And because of that, you are flat out wrong.
ALL of the examples I have provided show that a conviction can be made based solely on eyewitness testimony. Even the ones that were overturned were overturned on other principles later on. You can pat yourself on the back all you want, but it won't change the law.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 19:08:03 GMT -5
CORROBORATED testimony you TOOL! "we have previously recognized that the testimony (WHICH IS CORROBORATED...READ YOUR MOTHER FUCKING EXAMPLE) of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:21:16 GMT -5
Again idiot, you do NOT need corroborated testimony in general. There is no mention of the word corroborated. Are you so desperate that you need to make shit up? Holy crap.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 19:24:27 GMT -5
No, I'm not making anything up. In the example you give, the credibility of the witnesses testimony was corroborated by additional "adduced" evidence. You, much like in ALL of your other arguments, choose to simply ignore the extraneous information that pokes holes in your Ballsian theories.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:27:30 GMT -5
In the example I gave, it was specifically stated on point, that you CAN convict on the sole basis of eyewitness testimony. Period.
That's the law. The fact that you are still arguing the general rule is mindboggling.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 19:29:02 GMT -5
The fact that you are applying a very superficial interpretation of the law is embarassing....for you.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:41:05 GMT -5
It's NOT superficial. It's the law. Period.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 20:45:24 GMT -5
We need an impartial review of this....
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 21:10:58 GMT -5
Just for once when there is a 15 against 1 argument I would faint if Balls was not always the 1.......
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 21:17:51 GMT -5
I don't care if every registered member disagreed with me. Case law says otherwise. As a general rule, with only a few exceptions, it is absolutely possible to convict someone based solely on eyewitness testimony.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 21:26:05 GMT -5
I don't care if every registered member disagreed with me. Case law says otherwise.
Balls I am not just talking in this particular case...it seems almost every argument your on an island....To be honest as far as the Mitchell Report goes for me personally I could care less and it is a non event......I am more interested in what we are going to do with our bullpen than I am with this nonsense......All Mitchell did was summarize all the evidence that was already out there and known and get a multi million dollar payday for him and his cronies......and now Congress will get off of Selig's back after next week......mission accomplished......
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 22:13:55 GMT -5
Stop with Damn reason, Cap!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 15, 2007 2:05:30 GMT -5
I don't know Cap--this may be just the beginning. Watching a little MSG now, and they are talking about the possibilities of defamation. And funny part is, they are flat out talking about how one person can testify.
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Dec 15, 2007 6:59:49 GMT -5
I don't care if every registered member disagreed with me.
You would if they were a jury.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 15, 2007 7:49:00 GMT -5
Just for once when there is a 15 against 1 argument I would faint if Balls was not always the 1....... i'm 1/2 in his corner.
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Dec 15, 2007 8:35:06 GMT -5
You fags need to go to www.lawnerdssniffeachothersbriefs.com and argue. The one name on that list that I didn't expect to see was Wally Joyner, but in retrospect, it makes sense. He came up at the same time as MacGuire and Canseco, and was a legit power hitter in his first season. He probably backed off the juice after he made it to the show, unlike the Bash Brothers. It made me think about that article about Rob Villone and how that wrter was basically surprised his name was on that list. That writer should do some serious introspection about journalistic independence and start to get some cynicism. The writer sounded just like any of the nameless people quoted as saying, "he was such a nice, quiet man" when asked about the mass murderer living two doors away.
|
|