Originally, the sole basis against Bill Clinton were the illegally recorded conversations Linda Trip had with Monica Lewinsky.
If Monica Lewinsky had took that stained dress to the cleaners, and didn’t substantiate the sex stories under oath, could anything have been done against Clinton?
I thought that evidence illegally obtained (like telephone recordings without a warrant) was inadmissable.
I don’t believe Linda Tripp was working for anyone. She just did them on her own.
However, I thought there was a law in either MD or VA that made it illegal to tape a phone call without notifying the person on the other end.
In a normal criminal proceeding, evidence illegaly obtained by a private party is not necessarily inadmissible. The “exclusionary rule” potentially applies to evidence obtained illegally by the government.
I’m not sure what evidentiary rules would apply in an impeachment proceeding.
apparently the evidence was admitted, Tripp was indicted on wiretapping charges, but the charges were eventually dropped because the only other witness was Monica Lewinsky, and her testimony wasn’t allowed because it was tainted. There’s also something about Tripp’s immunity and federal vs. state and all sorts of legal hoo haw.
A person may not vicariously assert another person’s Fourth Amendment rights. If Monica Lewinsky was illegally recorded by the government, the evidence might not be admissible against her. However, there’s nothing to prevent it being used against another person.
wow. so if my friend had been wiretapped, and he said that i killed some guy, that could be used as evidence against me?
or if some business papers of mine were stolen by a private dick, incriminating papers detailing various frauds and schemes, could the government compell him to turn them over as admissable evidence?
jb
On the first point, no. The fact that the statement’s been recorded does not automatically make it admissible. Since it’s an out of court, unsworn statement, made by a third party, I would be surprised if it would be admissible against you. However, if the police listen to the wiretap, they could potentially go to that third party and interview him about his statement. If he repeats the allegation, it may trigger an investigation against you, with the possibility that he might be called to testify against you.
On the second point, presumably the police could obtain the documents via a search warrant or subpoena deuces tecum, or the equivalent. If so, the weight to be accorded them would depend on whther the proseuction could show that the documents are in fact your business documents and accurately record the business transactions in question.
(Note: both my comments are take based on Canadian evidence law - USMMV.)
I thought wiretapping was OK as long as ONE person in the conversation knew it was being recorded. The government can record conversations as long as one of you knows it is being recorded. It should be legal to record your own conversations.
It depends on who appointed the judge, and whose justice dept. is chasing you. These days, you’re pretty much screwded. The bill of rights, except for the 2nd, is suspended under Dubya.
I spelled screwed that way in honor of my former junior senator.
–Nott
Apparently, Maryland (where Tripp and/or Lewinski lived) has a law that makes it illegal to record a conversation unless both parties know about it.
AskNott: Dubya might think that the BoR is suspended, but fortunately, the courts have not been shy about spanking W & Friends when they step too far out of line.
In regard to impeachment, it’s whatever a majority of the House agrees on and removal, whatever 2/3 of the Senate says.
In regard to legal trouble, Clinton might have been in trouble without the tapes or the dress. He was asked and answered (in the Jones lawsuit) a number of questions about Monica’s whereabouts around the Oval office, which he gave false answers about. Third parties could have testified he was mistaken about these matters to such a degree that Clinton’s statements were not simply mistakes, but lies. Then he might have been subject to perjury charges under certain circumstances.
IMO however, without the tapes and dress, the matter may have been pushed but not gone much of anywhere. I don’t see the court, the Congress or the public caring whether Clinton admitted or denied her appearance without evidence of sexual misconduct.
In the United States, hearsay can serve as the basis for probable cause and a warrant.
Note that if the statement were excluded, it would be excluded for hearsay, not for any Fourth Amendment violation.
Finally, hearsay is a tricky thing. If the statement isn’t offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it isn’t hearsay. For example, the recorded statement could be offered to show why your friend took certain actions to protect himself - not for the fact that the declarant killed someone. For this purpose, it’s admissible.