I’ve no idea. Two things, though. Firstly, I’ve not suggested that no witness testimony should be allowed. Honestly, what is so complicated about the idea that no conviction should rest on unsupported, potentially biased, witness testimony? If there’s other evidence that supports the testimony, if the witness is demonstrably independent, then there’s no problem.
And secondly, if there is no way to convict anyone of a particular crime without ignoring that it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, then no-one should be convicted of that crime.
Dunn’s case fits this – there was additional evidence in support of the witnesses, and there was the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend.
It doesn’t logically follow from this that witness testimony may not be enough. Some juries may be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by witness testimony – for example, what if the defendant testifies and is caught in a lie? What if he changes the details of his story? What if he gives away a detail in his story that only the killer would know? These are all reasonable ways in which witness testimony can (but is not always) enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why are you so obsessed with whether a defendant lies? All that you can determine if he’s lying is that you should disregard his statements. You can’t prove guilt through proving that a defendant is lying.
You would still need the actual proof of his guilt. That is all I’m calling for, only convicting people when there’s actual proof, not unsupported, potentially biased testimony.
Why do you think it’s acceptable to convict people based solely on unsupported, potentially biased, witness evidence?
Such as in the Dunn case, right? Physical evidence, witness testimony, Dunn’s own testimony, and Dunn’s girlfriend’s testimony – exactly what you’re describing as sufficient evidence.
When did I say this? I believe it’s acceptable, as occurred in the Dunn case, to convict someone based on the totality of physical evidence, witness testimony, and other testimony.
If someone shot my wife in front of me but said she had a shotgun, and I was the witness, it would be appropriate to convict them if the physical evidence supported that the shooter pulled the trigger, and the physical evidence supported that there was no shotgun and my wife was not carrying something that looked like a shotgun, and my witness testimony – the collection of this evidence would be enough, most likely, to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you think there is a case in which the only basis of conviction was witness testimony – no physical evidence, no other testimony… then cite it.
The whole premise of this thread is you challenging my claim that no conviction should be based on unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony. Why do you think it’s acceptable for convictions to be based solely on such testimony? Or, if you don’t think that, why spend so much time attacking me for saying that it’s unacceptable for it to happen?
The thread is about (with the Dunn case as a starting point) whether witness testimony should be disregarded in some cases. I’ve been challenging your assertion that the Dunn case (or any case) is based solely on unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony.
Why won’t you respond about the Dunn case? It wasn’t based on unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony – it was based on the totality of evidence.
The sum total of my argument is that no conviction should rest on unsupported, potentially biased witness statements. You started a thread to disagree with that statement, after repeatedly expressing incredulity that I actually thought that in the other thread.
Why do you think it’s acceptable for convictions to be based on unsupported, potentially biased, witness statements?
When have I said that convictions should rest on unsupported, potentially biased witness statements? The Dunn case did not. Without some form of supporting evidence – physical, other witnesses, the words of the defendant, etc., there would probably not be enough evidence to convict Dunn or others.
I disagreed and expressed incredulity that you thought the jury in the Dunn case should disregard the witness testimony. Are you changing your mind? Do you still feel the jury in the Dunn case could not have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn was guilty?
Are you going to stop sidestepping the Dunn case? There was more than just witness testimony.
The jury gets to decide whether it thinks the defendant is lying or another witness is lying. If you don’t trusts jury to do that, then you don’t trust a jury to do anything.
When you repeatedly challenged me for claiming that convictions shouldn’t rest on them, and opened a new thread specifically to discuss it.
Are you going to stop sidestepping the actual question here? Why do you continue to support convictions being based solely on unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony? The Dunn case is simply one example, it’s the principle that you keep challenging. Why?
I didn’t – I challenged the assertion that the jury should disregard witness testimony in some cases, like the Dunn case. I opened a thread to discuss this.
Heh. I started the thread, with the Dunn case as a starting point – and I’ve answered all your questions.
I don’t. I’ve answered this multiple times. The Dunn case does not qualify – there was more than just witness testimony (potentially biased or not, and it was actually supported by other evidence).
The Dunn case is not one example of this – the Dunn case included other evidence. I support convictions based on a totality of evidence, like the Dunn case – if you give me an example of case that had zero evidence except for witness testimony (the Dunn case doesn’t fit), then I could give you an opinion – but in general, a conviction should require more evidence (like the Dunn case) than just witness testimony.
What is your opinion about the Dunn case now? Do you still believe that there was no evidence other than the witness testimony, despite the physical evidence and the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend?
So, you disagree that the jury should disregard unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony? We’re back where we started then, and you’re happy to have convictions based on unsupported, potentially biased witness statements because the jury can’t disregard them.
The jury absolutely should disregard unsupported testimony from potentially biased witnesses. It is impossible to judge that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on such testimony and, as it is unsupported, such testimony has no bearing on any other evidence.
If someone is guilty, there should be no problem providing the other evidence, rather than relying on irrelevant witness statements.
They should be free to regard or disregard it based on their evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. If they feel it’s biased and not true, then they should disregard it. If they feel it is honest and credible, then they should regard it. They should take this testimony as part of the package of evidence, and evaluate it (and all the other evidence) on the merits.
What convictions are based on this? The Dunn case is based on a large collection of evidence, including physical evidence, witness testimony and other evidence.
The jury is free to disregard this evidence if they don’t feel it has merit – that’s totally based on their evaluation of the honesty and credibility of the witnesses. Juries should be free to make this decision. You want to take this decision out of their hands.
The witness testimony in the Dunn case was supported by other evidence. They might be potentially biased, because they’re human beings – do you believe that all human witness testimony should be disregarded because, as humans, they might be biased?
In the Dunn case, there was plenty of other evidence. The witness testimony was just part of it.
According to you, witnesses to a shooting should not be heard from, at least if they might be friends of the deceased. That’s ludicrous. The jury should hear from them, and hear all the evidence – witness testimony is evidence. The jury can disregard it if they find it not credible, and they can utilize it as evidence if they find it credible.
I have no idea how you can get that from anything I’ve said. My claim is that, absent any other evidence that it was not self defence, that witness testimony should not be considered sufficient to convict.
I really have no idea why you find this idea so difficult, why you keep misunderstanding it, and why you keep claiming that I’m saying something else.
I’ll try one more time, and then I’m done.
No criminal conviction should be based on unsupported evidence by potentially biased witnesses. Either discuss this statement, as that’s the assertion I made that you disagreed vehemently with, and started this thread to criticise, or I’m out. There’s no point continuing to argue with you about points I never made.
You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. Self-defense must be proven by the defendant. He doesn’t get to have his word taken for it. Once it’s established that the defendant killed the victim, the defendant is responsible for persuading the jury that it was in self-defense. The prosecution does not have to prove it was not self-defense.
Which they did, by showing that there was no shotgun and no object that could possibly be mistaken for a shotgun by anyone who actually bothered to look anywhere near sufficiently to meet the “identify your target” criterion of responsible gun usage.