Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy
I fnd this amusing. There are well known lawyers out there who have many issues with the prosecutor and the judge. These lawyers will all be studying the case together and will be reporting their findings. I think the most important issue i read was how the judge shouldnt have allowed hear say evidence from 2 random gun owners who shot guns that were different then stanleys in different conditions that were unrelated to the trial.
They submitted hear say evidence and the judge allowed it. Thats a massive mistake that the judge and prosecution should have prevented.
So to counter any expert in any field all we need in a court of law are 2 random dudes to take the stand and say otherwise.
Your cop friend presses charges for a crime not defends someone from it. Their job isnt to determine whos guilty or not.. hes got an opinion just like everyone else. Thats about it.
|
How is that hear say? If they shot the guns it is not hear say. Hear say means you are repeating what you are told by someone else.
I'm confused now what grounds there is to not allow their testimony?