I’m not (I don’t think) talking about the rules of evidence - I’m not saying that such testimony should not be presented to a jury. At least, it shouldn’t be specifically banned, but it would arguably be unethical to present a case with only that evidence.
I’m saying that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. If there’s reason to think the witness might be biased, there’s reason to doubt the testimony.
Why do you persist in talking about situations where witness testimony is backed up with anything? That’s irrelevant to any of my arguments, in this thread or the other one.
Is it really so hard to address what I’m actually saying?
You keep saying “should not be used” in a manner that suggests you mean “should not be used at all” as opposed to “should not be used exclusively.” Which one do you really mean?
Consider a hypothetical. Witnesses A, B, and C (all of whom know/knew both Accused and Victim) testify that the room where the shooting happened was brightly lit with clear visibility. Victim is dead and can’t testify; Accused says the lights were off and in the dim surroundings he thought victim had a gun.
When the cops got there, the lights were on, but the cops didn’t see the room at the moment of the shooting, and it’s at least possible the light switch got flipped between the shooting and the cops’ arrival.
The witness evidence as to the lighting at the time is unsupported (except by each other) and potentially biased (since they all knew each other). Should the jury consider their testimony about the light levels as part of the jury’s evaluation of the totality of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses, or should the jury disregard their testimony and not consider it at all in deciding whether Accused acted reasonably?
Would your answer differ if other parts of the eyewitness testimony (such as the relative positions of the parties, the size of the gun, angle of the shot, etc.) are supported by physical evidence? That is, would a jury be correct to conclude, “okay, every time there is any evidence to support or refute A’s testimony, the evidence says that A is telling the truth, so A is pretty trustworthy and a good witness, and we can rely on A’s version of events on the parts where there is no evidence”?
Just so we’re clear that I’m not pulling your actually position out of my ass:
(Bolding mine). Nothing in there about reasonable doubt. You stated it with confidence, as I said, and then only altered your position when other posters wouldn’t let you get away with it.
I am specifically talking about the hypothetical situation where the two things are the same, where the only evidence is testimony of the type I keep referring to. So, if it is to be relied on, it must be relied on exclusively.
Further, this again violates your own rule – why must the jury disregard their testimony when there is physical evidence and other testimony that supports their testimony?
What are you talking about? How many times do I have to make it clear that I’m talking about what should happen when there isn’t such supporting evidence. What part of that are you still struggling to understand?
This isn’t an idle, rhetorical question. I genuinely do not see how such a clear and simple statement can be so hard to understand.
Steophan: “Uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony must be disregarded if the standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
iiandyiii: “OK, what about this specific potentially biased witness testimony from the Dunn case which IS corroborated by other evidence?”
Steophan: “That, too, must be disregarded, for entirely different reasons that I’m going to refuse to explain, and I’m not sure why you’re so confused about it.”
No, I’m not talking about any evidence that’s corroborated by other evidence. I’m saying that potentially biased, uncorroborated witness statements do not suffice to prove anything.
Why are you supporting iiandyiiii’s straw man argument?
I’m talking about steronz’s question, which was about the Dunn case, which you answered “yes, and yes”.
Are you kidding? What’s hard to understand is that you’re saying something about the Dunn case which is factually false.
steronz asked you about the Dunn case, whether the testimony should have been disregarded, and you said “yes”. You said “yes” even though the testimony in the Dunn case was supported by other evidence. So this violated your own rule.
If the record on appeal shows that the only evidence that the jury heard was the testimony of a witness who was biased, what, in your scheme, would the appellate court do?
The witness is telling the truth about everything that can be corroborated, but whether or not the light was on cannot be corroborated. Can the jury find credible and rely upon the witness’s statement that the light was on, or must the jury totally disregard any statement that is not supported by physical evidence?
Why are you unable to separate your disagreement with me about the particulars of one case from the argument about a principle?
I believe that the jury should not have convicted Dunn for murder because the only evidence that he wasn’t threatened was the testimony of Davis’ companions.
I believe that no case should ever be decided uncorroborated witness statements from potentially biased sources.
You keep claiming that your disagreement with me about the facts of one specific case has some bearing on the general principle, but refuse to say why.
I shall ask again, in the vain hope that you might answer. What is so hard to understand about the principle that no case should ever be decided uncorroborated witness statements from potentially biased sources? I’m not even asking if you agree with it, just what you struggle to understand about that simple statement.
Is it reasonable to think that, if the light was off, that he could have felt in imminent danger of death or serious injury? If so, acquit.
Uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased source should not be relied upon for a conviction. If, for the conviction to stand, it is required to know beyond reasonable doubt that the light was on, he is not guilty.
How can you possibly decide whether it is reasonable without hearing and relying upon eyewitness testimony?
For example, if fifty or a hundred people say the Accused was belligerent and shot Victim in cold blood in full view of God and everybody, but Accused says, oh no, it was dark and scary, Accused wins.
You have now given every Accused everywhere in the country a get-out-of-jail-free card. Every single murderer could claim, “oh, I was afraid” and by the rules you set, we would HAVE to acquit them, all of them. You could not introduce any eyewitness testimony to show that the fear was not reasonable, because all of that testimony would be uncorroborated and potentially biased.
You are setting an impossible standard. (I don’t mean difficult, I mean “cannot be achieved.”) In the scenario described, there is no doubt whatsoever that A killed V, but without eyewitness testimony, what possible rebuttal could there be to “I was afraid”? It was broad daylight? that needs testimony. Victim had no weapon? that needs testimony. Victim was mild and meek and Accused knew it? that needs testimony. The security camera footage is untampered? that needs testimony.
What evidence of “no, it was not reasonable” would you accept?