How can the rest of us (i.e., the members of the jury) assure ourselves that you really have no opinions or feelings about these people? After all, you might have an aversion to blond men in polo shirts, even if you don’t know THIS blond in a polo shirt, and so are biased against him. After all, we can’t rely on your own testimony about your feelings, since if you are biased, your testimony will be inevitably tainted.
Yes, if all 50 people are potentially biased, the don’t convict. For example, if the defendant was black, and the alleged crime took place at a KKK convention, then assume bias is possible and don’t convict. The same for any other situation where bias can’t be ruled out, beyond reasonable doubt.
So don’t convict, if you can’t trust my testimony beyond reasonable doubt. Surely that’s obvious?
No, you’re making claims about the Dunn case, which factually (and very obviously) had additional corroborating evidence. That’s what I’m arguing with you about. I haven’t made any claims about cases with no evidence beyond witness testimony – chiefly because I don’t believe such a case that’s gone to trial (in recent history) exists.
You’re “quite possibly biased” in both cases – how can the jury determine if you’re not biased for some other reason – prejudice, preference, etc.?
Because the way you’re using the word “uncorroborated” doesn’t fit. It makes no sense to describe the Dunn case as having no additional evidence, or uncorroborated witness testimony. These are factually incorrect statements. You are factually incorrect in your description of the Dunn case.
You seem to be confused about what’s obvious.
ANY witness is potentially biased. The crime doesn’t have to take place at a KKK convention for there to be racial bias present, e.g. You would deny the jury the opportunity to judge for themselves whether the bias is potential or real, whether the witness is reliable or unreliable, in favor of eliminating any potentially biased testimony. That serves to eliminate all eyewitness testimony.
I think that the members of the jury should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether any given witness is reliable, and whether any potential bias is real or not. If the jury decides that the witness is credible, that we can trust this witness, then we may rely upon this witness’s uncorroborated testimony to convict.
I am understanding you to say the opposite: if there is any potential at all that this witness is biased (such as this witness knows the victim or the accused), then this witness’s testimony MUST be disregarded. Is that not what you mean? Does the mere fact that Witness A knows Victim B mean that the testimony must be disregarded?
What part of “uncorroborated testimony by a potentially biased witness should not be relied upon for a conviction” do people still not understand? If you think all witnesses are potentially biased then fine, don’t rely on any uncorroborated testimony. That’s not a problem.
If the jury judge that a witness is unbiased, beyond reasonable doubt, that’s fine. The problem is, people here are supporting convictions where that judgement cannot be made.
If that’s what you believe, why do you keep bringing it up? I’m talking about cases where there is no corroborating evidence. I am well aware that you disagree with me about the Dunn case. What purpose do you think constantly mentioning it when it’s not relevant serves?
It is relevant – it’s what sparked this discussion! I mentioned it in my OP. That’s what started this thread – your statements about the Dunn case.
I’m bringing it up because I want to discuss it. I want you to explain to me how the physical evidence and testimony from Dunn’s girlfriend that backed up the witness testimony doesn’t count as corroborating and supporting evidence.
Where are people here “supporting convictions where that judgment can’t be made?”
Am I correct in thinking I remember that it’s,
The prosecution must prove, their case in whole beyond reasonable doubt, even if no single piece of evidence* is beyond reasonable doubt,
not,
The prosecution must prove, each piece of evidence*, beyond reasonable doubt?
*There are, what should be, obvious limited exceptions, e.g. the corpus delicti.
Simply.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for the case not the evidence.
This is a questions of law not opinion and that’s the answer I’m looking for, what the law actually says not what anyone thinks about it, thanks in advance.
CMC fnord!
I think we’ve run up against a no-true-untrue-testimony wall.
Sigh. Dunn should not have been convicted because no-one should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. That you don’t believe that he was convicted on that basis isn’t going to change my opinion that it’s wrong to convict people on that basis.
You are still approaching this from the point of view that he should be proven innocent. That’s not how it should be, and not something I’m interested in attempting, if only because attempting it would give some legitimacy to the idea that it’s necessary.
You began this thread with the false claim that I said that all witness evidence should be disregarded in self defence cases, and no matter how many times I state my actual position on this, which is not what you claim it is, you ignore that, and repeatedly ask me questions I’ve already answered, and which have nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread - which is what degree of regard a jury should give witness statements, especially when they are uncorroborated and potentially biased.
If you continue to feel that the witness statements in the Dunn case were corroborated or provably unbiased, then that subject has nothing to do with this thread. Asking me literally unanswerable questions like “why isn’t there evidence to corroborate them” isn’t going to accomplish anything, because there are two answers, both possible, with no way to determine between them. Either the statements are true, or they are false, and without the additional evidence it’s impossible to know to a sufficient level of certainty.
You believe otherwise, you believe his girlfriend’s statements about a different matter, or the lack of physical evidence of a shotgun, speak with certainty to Dunn’s state of mind, to whether he felt threatened by Davis. I disagree.
It doesn’t actually matter in any practical sense, as even were he to be acquitted of murder he would likely die in prison.
You clearly think he should have been convicted. Which leaves two options. Either you agree with me that he was convicted based on uncorroborated testimony but think that’s acceptable, or you disagree that he was convicted on that basis, but want to keep bringing it up despite it being irrelevant to the views of mine you are attacking.
All witnesses are potentially biased, and no evidence can shown to a jury without testimony from a potentially biased witness. You are proposing a completely impossibel standard.
Got a video of me robbing a bank? Videos can be faked, you know, and the only evidence you have that this is an accurate video is from the testimony of the potentially biased bank IT guy who brought it to the police.
Found me with a kilo of cocaine in my trunk? The only evidence that it’s not sugar is from the testimony of potentially biased guy at the state crime lab, and the only evidence that it was found in my trunk is the potentially biased testimony of the cop who says he found it there.
How are you going to get a conviction of any crime under any circumstances under your proposed rules?
What reason do you have to think any of those people are biased?
Are you kidding me? Every witness has some potential bias. Cops are potentially racists, or have a quota, or are looking for a promotion, or like to close cases, or 1000 other things a clever defense attorney could allege. In drug cases, their get to seize cool stuff and their department profits (civil forfeiture). The guy at the bank is pissed that you (in his opinion) robbed his bank, and he’s going to make sure you don’t get away with it, even if he has to “doctor” the video just a bit.
Seriously, when you say “potentially biased witness” you are in fact including every witness who ever testified about any thing. If you want actual bias, that’s a different story. Anyway, the courts and juries do a pretty good job exploring bias and letter jurors figure out who is telling the truth and who is not. It’s by no means perfect, and I am as troubled as anyone by innocent people being convicted. I also am aware of serious flaws in witnesses ability to accurately describe what they think they observed. And some people are just plain dishonest. I’m open to suggestions for improving the system, but “no one gets convicted based on uncorroborated testimony” means “no one gets convicted, ever.”
What is your standard for determining who is biased and who isn’t?
That’s a non-sequitur, like “Obama should not have been elected because no American president should be elected by the votes of Australians”. The two thoughts do not connect.
That’s fine, because I’m not trying to convince you that this particular belief is wrong, only that it doesn’t apply to the Dunn case. These are factual questions that can actually be explored, but you’re running away from that discussion for some reason (I assume it’s because it’s so obvious that there is lots of corroborating additional evidence, freely available in public documents).
I’m not approaching it this way.
That’s not what I stated in the OP. You left out the “at least if the witnesses were close to the deceased”. Further, you’ve made the contradictory claim that (in these cases) the juries should hear the witnesses but should disregard their testimony. This makes no sense and just would waste everyone’s time. What’s the point of this part?
Yes it does – I started the thread, I mentioned the Dunn case, and I continued to mention the Dunn case with many or most of my posts. It was always part of this thread.
When did I ask you “why isn’t there evidence to corroborate them”? Where do you get this stuff? The facts of the Dunn case are freely available and relevant to this discussion.
His girlfriend’s statements were not about a different matter – they were about Dunn’s statements (or lack of statements) in the aftermath of the shooting. The combination of all the evidence speaks beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn could not reasonably be fearing for his life. If he was fearing for his life, that fear was unreasonable, and acting on unreasonable fear is not self-defense.
Yet it really, really bothered you that this proven liar and attempted murderer and killer of an unarmed and non-violent child was convicted.
I keep bringing it up because I want to discuss it. That was part of my OP and that’s part of what I want to discuss. I started this thread with the intention of exploring your philosophy and your beliefs about the Dunn case.
You just want to be able to kill people and bar any of the most likely witnesses from testifying.
This would be a disaster for the jury system in general and hi use law in particular.
I, on the other hand, would prefer that self-defense be eliminated as s complete defense to homicide and relevant only as a mitigating factor for sentencing. If the finder of fact accepts your claim of self-defense, then the judge could suspend your sentence.
To take the specific examples, those are good reasons to end civil forfeiture, and to get independent witnesses to examine the video. I would expect any prosecutor to do the latter anyway.
The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt. It’s reasonable to think someone’s friends might be willing to lie to protect them, it’s not reasonable to think an expert witness would lie about whether a video has been doctored. Of course, if there are questions about the technology used to determine that, they should certainly be answered.
Physical evidence, testimony by other independent witnesses, and many other things can be added to witness testimony to corroborate it or to compensate for bias. Five people who independently witness something can corroborate each other, far more so than a group of five connected people who report the same thing.
The reason no one is understanding you is because what you are saying is so deeply stupid, people are baffled. You’re typing in coherent English, so obviously you haven’t sustained some serious head injury, and your descriptions of reality are close enough to true that it seems you aren’t delusional. You are saying incredibly ignorant nonsense, and when it’s shown to you just how bafflingly dumb your statements are, you either double down in some weirdly hostile way, or you deny that’s even what you said. Your opinion is utter garbage, and it’s surprising to people that you continue to stand by it, when even Koko the gorilla would have signed an apology by now.
You should take it as a compliment, really.
My philosophy is that no-one should be convicted based upon the uncorroborated testimony of potentially biased witnesses. I believe that Dunn’s conviction is unsafe because of this. You disagree, because unlike me you believe that evidence corroborates the witness statements.
You have shown no interest in discussing the philosophy, the only part that is actually worth debating. Simply stating repeatedly that I have the facts wrong in the Dunn case neither changes my mind about that case nor furthers debate about the issue.
If you agree with my philosophy but disagree with the application of it to the Dunn case, there’s literally nothing to discuss. If you disagree with my philosophy, discuss that rather than harping on about a case where you don’t even think it’s relevant.