I’m writing to point out here that this discussion is predicated on a notion of Steophan’s about the weight given to witness testimony. This notion – that potentially biased witness testimony is unreliable, as a matter of law, or at least insufficiently probative as a matter of law to sustain a conviction – exists only in Steophan’s head and not in the rules of evidence in any state (or nation) I know of.
To me, any collateral quibbling about things like the burden of proof needed for self-defense are completely irrelevant. If Steophan’s rule existed in fact, Dunn (and thousands of others) could not have been legally convicted.
It doesn’t. In real life, the jury is perfectly competent to weigh testimony and believe, or disbelieve, each and any witness, and to rest any finding of fact they make upon such testimony. That’s the real rule.
So this discussion is flailing about on collateral matters, matters on which Steophan is correct and scoring points on others who are not correctly informed, when it should focus squarely on the gapingly wrong central assumption Steophan makes about the validity of witness testimony.
So, Bricker, are you saying that uncorroborated and potentially biased witness testimony should support a conviction? For any crime, not just self defence? In my opinion, it is impossible that such testimony could ever persuade beyond reasonable doubt.
Key words here are “as a matter of law”. You’ve inserted them into Steophan’s position, but I’ve not seen him make this claim. And your assertion that he’s incorrect rests entirely on these words.
So I think Steophan should clarify. Is it your position that testimony of biased witnesses is disregarded “as a matter of law”? Or are you merely claiming that in your opinion no jury should ever vote to convict on that basis?
The purpose of a jury is to judge credibility. A witness’ potential for bias is certainly relevant, and the jury can take it into account along with what the witness says. But to declare, as you have done, that such testimony is automatically incapable of supporting a conviction is an error.
Well, I have to disagree, as a matter of principle. I simply don’t accept that one can believe that someone is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, based solely on witness testimony, especially when that witness testimony may be biased.
I am genuinely surprised that anyone would support a conviction based solely on uncorroborated testimony. That’s not normally allowed even if that testimony is a confession from the accused, if they later plead not guilty.
I’m not claiming any testimony should be disregarded, as a matter of law or otherwise. I’m saying I believe it is impossible to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt based solely on uncorroborated witness statements, if those witnesses may be biased.
I’ve stated this repeatedly, and I still don’t know what part of it people are struggling to understand.
Well you need to make this more clear, as you’re talking past a lot of people, most notably at this point Bricker. Bricker, as is his wont, has interpreted your position as being an assertion about the current state of the law, which would be an incorrect assertion.
But I believe a number of other people also understand you to be saying that such testimony should be “disregarded”. In fact, it’s in the title of this thread …
I genuinely can’t make it more clear than that. If the only evidence is potentially biased witness testimony, then there should not be a conviction.
People keep bringing up irrelevant issues, claiming that I’m arguing that no witness testimony should be used, or that witness testimony backed up with evidence should be ignored. I have said none of those things, and have repeatedly stated I’m not arguing with them.
And yet, when I say “a conviction should not be based on unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony”, people keep disagreeing without giving reasons.
You said, repeatedly, that it should be disregarded. That’s not “not sufficient” – that’s “it should be ignored”. That’s “it shouldn’t matter or contribute at all to the case”. That’s ludicrous – the jury should hear from them, and the testimony should contribute to their understanding of the case.
It’s difficult because you are changing your story and refusing to talk about the Dunn case anymore, probably because it’s so obvious that your earlier descriptions of the Dunn case were totally inaccurate.
Alright – I agree with this, in general – there may be specific instances in which it shouldn’t apply. But there are virtually zero cases in which this happens. Not the Dunn case, not my hypothetical in which my wife is shot in front of me – in virtually all murder cases, in addition to any possible witnesses, there is physical evidence, and testimony from others (including those close to the defendant, often). This is the case for Dunn’s trial – there was a lot of evidence on top of the witness testimony.
You say the witnesses should be disregarded (you said it in post#53!). I disagree – it can be disregarded, and it can be regarded, depending on what the jury decides – but it should be heard. It should not be ignored, it should not be disregarded out of hand – it should be part of the case.
So apply this to the Dunn case. I dare you. Use this evaluation on a case in which there was plenty of other evidence to back up the witness testimony – like the Dunn case.
You dare me? Grow up. This isn’t about one particular case, it’s about the principle that unsupported, potentially biased testimony should not be used by a jury to decide that someone’s guilty. If that’s all the evidence that is produced, the jury should look at that evidence, and realise that it cannot prove guilt. In that particular circumstance, I think “disregard” is appropriate. If you have a better term for what the jury should do to evidence that cannot prove guilt, and has no relation to any other evidence, I’d be happy to use that instead.
For some reason, you keep claiming I think all witness testimony should be ignored, even if it’s from unbiased witnesses and backed up with other evidence. That’s an absurd claim, and one I never made. You’ve taken a disagreement about the specifics of one particular case, and turned it into a ridiculous straw man attack on an argument I never made.
Yes, you’ve made your opinion clear. And of course as it’s your opinion, you’re most welcome to have it.
The point I’m emphasizing is that in every single state of the United States, and in every single country I’m aware of in the world, the rules of evidence don’t support your opinion. In other words, what you wish the rules to be, and what they are, is markedly different.
So I am also “genuinely surprised” at your claim of genuine surprise, since it amounts to a claim that you are genuinely surprised that the law says what it already says.
I’ll take this as an admission that you were wrong before about the Dunn case, but you don’t have the capacity to admit it. The Dunn case had physical evidence and the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend to back up the witness testimony.
This is all fine, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Dunn case or anything you’ve said earlier related to the Dunn case.
You’re straw-manning my supposed straw-man. You wanted the jury to disregard the witness testimony in the Dunn case, even though it was backed up by other evidence and Dunn’s girlfriend’s testimony. Why did you want that evidence disregarded?
Why do you keep using the word “unbiased” – how does someone determine if literally any testimony is unbiased? All humans have the potential to be biased.
I’ve been going hard at you, Steophan, because you’re saying one thing in general about the concept of justice, reasonable doubt, and witness testimony, but not applying it as you’re describing it in the Dunn case. You’re saying it’s just about witness testimony that’s unsupported, but this came up in a discussion of the Dunn case – and this is an inaccurate description of the Dunn case. In fact, I’ve never heard of a case in which there was literally zero evidence except for witness testimony. If you have, please share it.
So you’re not applying your own rule properly, apparently, and it’s damn confusing. Can you clear it up? Can you explain why you think this ‘rule’ is relevant to the Dunn case, or to any other case in the real world?
iiandyiii, you should probably just drop it at this point. Nearest I can tell, Steophan’s position is that Dunn said he was threatened and a bunch of thugs who were friends with the dead thug said that no threats were made. He thinks that no jury worth a shit would ever believe those thugs, because they’re obviously lying to avenge their dead thug friend.
He’s 100% sure of this even though he wasn’t there to hear their testimony, and that he knows nothing about them except a) their skin color, b) that one time at a gas station they turned up their music real loud, and c) they were all in the same car together. His confidence that their testimony was garbage and should have been disregarded, nay, not even presented because it’s obviously biased lying garbage and everyone involved should have realized that and just saved the jury the time, is completely indefensible, and probably racist. And, not surprisingly, nobody is stepping up to defend him.
Not sure what else I can say since this isn’t in the pit, but congratulations, you win.
No, my point is it isn’t certain beyond reasonable doubt that they’re neither lying nor mistaken. You, like several others here, have the burden of proof misplaced once again.
You never admitted the italicized part – those are just facts that IIRC you previously denied.
Do you still deny those facts which are documented by public record? Or do you agree that the witness testimony in the Dunn case was actually backed up by other evidence?
When the witness testimony is combined with the physical evidence, Dunn’s own testimony, and Dunn’s girlfriend’s testimony, it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt (according to the jury). And this is reasonable, that witness testimony + other evidence can lead to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.