The part that’s false is: uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
As a matter of law, that’s false. Again, I recognize that your opinion is otherwise. But in the real world, the actual law used in every state does NOT say that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. To the contrary, uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness on it’s own can legally serve as sufficient proof for a jury to convict and for that conviction to be upheld on appeal.
Is that specifically written into the law? Because my claim is that if the evidence cannot possibly prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then any guilty verdict must be overturned. That, I know, is written into law.
Stop bringing up hypotheticals involving corroborated, unbiased testimony as if they have anything to do with my argument about uncorroborated, biased testimony.
The response to my argument that, in a particular situation, it would be unreasonable to convict is not to bring up a different situation in which it would be reasonable to convict.
You are, however, right about one thing. This principle could potentially allow some people to get away with murder. That’s not a problem. People getting away with murder is a far less serious issue that convicting innocent people, or denying people the right to defend themselves.
What’s specifically NOT present in the law is the concept that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, a guilty verdict in which the trial record contained only uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness would stand on appeal.
In other words, if a defendant were convicted, and then on appeal correctly pointed out that the only evidence against him at trial was the uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness, the appeals court would say that this evidence, alone, was legally sufficient to convict.
Police Officers are sometimes considered biased witnesses in a criminal trial. I have seen hundreds of trials where a defendant is convicted (beyond a reasonable doubt) based on the uncorroborated testimony of police officers. What you’re suggesting would be a wholesale transformation of the way or criminal justice system works.
False – there was physical evidence that he wasn’t threatened, and there was the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend that supported the witness testimony.
Because you’re violating your own principle in the Dunn case.
That’s not hard to understand (except for the “potentially biased” part – what the hell does that mean? Every human has the potential to be biased). What’s hard to understand is that you go beyond this for the Dunn case and other hypothetical cases discussed.
Yes, indeed one of the points I brought up in one of these threads was the criticism of the police by the same people who are criticising me. I don’t believe that someone should be convicted solely on the word of a police officer
Nope. I’m saying that, because there was no evidence other than the potentially biased testimony, he should not have been convicted. That’s not a contradiction of the principle.
If every person is potentially biased, then apply this to every witness. Not really an issue.
Obviously I disagree with you about how I’m applying the principle, but so what? That’s not relevant, indeed it’s a distraction from the actual issue, which is that you are quite happy for people to be convicted based on uncorroborated witness evidence. It’s rather disturbing how many people are…
Nope to what? That there was physical evidence? That Dunn’s girlfriend testified? That her testimony supported the witnesses contention that there was no shotgun and no reasonable threat to Dunn’s life? Which one are you denying?
Yes it is, because it’s factually false. There was other evidence. Dunn’s girlfriend really did testify – this isn’t a fantasy. Her testimony really did contradict Dunn’s claims and support the witnesses claims. There really was physical evidence.
Straw man. If you think I’ve said I’m happy for people to be convicted based solely on uncorroborated witness evidence, than cite a post in which I say this.
And you’re skipping the questions about the Dunn case again. What are you saying “nope” about? That there was physical evidence? That Dunn’s girlfriend testified? That her testimony supported the witnesses contention that there was no shotgun and no reasonable threat to Dunn’s life? Which one are you denying?
That’s because the facts of any one particular case aren’t relevant to the principle being discussed. I think the principle is relevant to that case, you disagree. Doesn’t matter,
This thread came about because you were incredulous that I could state that I don’t believe people should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. And no matter how many times I try to get to the root of your incredulity, you just bring up your belief that it’s not relevant to a particular case.
Sure it matters – it’s part of what’s being debated. You said “nope”, and I asked you what you were denying… why not just clarify it?
No it didn’t. When did I say “uncorroborated”? Why are you continuing this straw man?
The Dunn case is what started this discussion. If you’re unwilling to discuss the facts of the Dunn case, then we can’t discuss real-world applications of your philosophy.
Are you acknowledging that my philosophy applies to the Dunn case? Because you’ve spent two threads denying that, and I’m not interested in arguing with you further about that.
Either I am right about that case, and he should not have been convicted of murder according to my principles, or I’m not, and it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
I can’t tell if it does – when you say it a certain way, it definitely doesn’t apply to the Dunn case, but then you say “yes, and yes” to steronz’s question about the Dunn case. It’s completely inconsistent due to the facts about the Dunn case.
So why can’t we discuss this? Are you uninterested in whether or not you were correct? Why don’t we discuss the totality of the evidence?
Why? The details of any specific case are irrelevant. No-one should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. It’s that claim that you keep attacking, that claim you started this thread about, and that claim you keep refusing to address, instead bringing up red herrings about particular cases.
Dunn should not have been convicted of murder, in my opinion, because that conviction, again in my opinion, relied on such uncorroborated evidence. Your opinion differs. So what? What relevance does that have to the principle?
Because the only claims I am making are about uncorroborated or biased evidence, and you keep arguing with me. I am making no claims about what should happen when the testimony is corroborated, or the witness is shown to be unbiased.
Not at all. If I witness events between two people I don’t know, and have no feelings for or opinions about, I’m unbiased. If someone accuses my friend of something, I’m quite possibly biased.
So you keep claiming. So why keep bringing it up when we’re talking about uncorroborated evidence? That’s all I’ve been talking about.
Your disagreement with me about whether some specific evidence was corroborated has nothing ton do with the value of uncorroborated testimony. Why do you keep acting as though ot does?
The hypotheticals I’ve introduced specifically involve UNcorroborated and potentially biased testimony, the exact kind of testimony you want the jury to disregard. If fifty people testify that the light was on, there’s still no corroborating physical evidence, and all fifty of them are potentially biased. This is precisely the evidence that you have declared would be unreasonable to use as the basis of conviction. Why would it be reasonable to convict in these circumstances, given the standard of review you yourself have promulgated?