Well, in this case, it was someone else’s business. Paula Jones claimed that she was asked for sex by her boss, Bill Clinton. Since there were no witnesses to the event, she wanted to be able to show a jury that she wasn’t lying about her claim. One way to do this was to show that Bill Clinton had asked other employees of his for sex. By showing that he had a pattern of asking employees for sex, Jones hoped a jury would conclude that her story was more likely to be true.
IANAL (obviously), but I’m kinda curious about this… I thought that asking questions like that was normally objectionable? At a criminal trial bringing up other crimes someone’s commited usually gets striken from the record (right?).
Is it different for civil matters?
We did a whole thread on this and I’m sure you participated in it. The short answer is, no. But the longer answer, in this case, is that these guys aren’t even going to be charged with “compromising the identity of an undercover agent”, so the whole point is moot.
You are aggressively ignorant and misleading too.
The only reason the jury instruction I’ve cited wouldn’t apply in a criminal case is because the defendant doesn’t have that obligation to take the stand and in some instances may not be required to produce privileged documents, but the prosecution does. It is taken directly from California Evidence Code section 412 and I’ll also refer to section 550 and they are not limited to civil cases.
-
If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it
was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more
satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with
distrust. -
(a) The burden of producing evidence as to a particular fact
is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required
in the absence of further evidence.
(b) The burden of producing evidence as to a particular fact is
initially on the party with the burden of proof as to that fact.
And I don’t need a license to practice law to post here or have an opinion. And it’s none of your fucking business if I do have one. So you are a lawyer. You are not a judge, and you are not a citation to legal authority. If you were sitting as a judge and a lawyer came in front of you arguing on the other side of a case from a pro per and he spouted your crap “believe me I’m a lawyer and the other side isn’t”, wouldn’t you say to that lawyer, you know you need to cite authority for your argument counsellor, the fact that you are a lawyer means you’ve been trained to cite authority and make cogent arguments, it’s not a certification that you are right. So if you are such a good lawyer, why are you doing just that? It’s because you are not such a good lawyer, it’s because you are a sub-standard lawyer.
Here’s what Witkin on California California law says:
(5) Suppressed and Weaker Evidence. “If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.” (Ev.C. 412; see People v. Simms (1970) 10 C.A.3d 299, 312, 89 C.R. 1 [instruction necessary only when evidence concerns material point]; 7 Cal. Proc., 3d,Trial, §289; 3 Cal. Evidence, 3d §1774.) However, no such instruction may be given against a criminal defendant relying on his privilege against testifying (Griffin rule). (See 2 Cal. Evidence, 3d, §1364.)
So guess what, lawyer man. I’m right and you’re wrong. Bet you’re not man (or woman) enough to admit it. Oh, and I don’t know all of the lawyers on the board in able to find out if any of them believes that there is not probable cause, so I cannot conduct such a poll. But I would be willing to bet that if you were to actually retain any lawyer on this board make a formal determination of whether there was probable cause, every one of them, including you, would insist on reviewing the whole file first, before spouting off. Starr and his successor did, and guess what, no indictment. I infer from that, no probable cause. If I were hired as the prosecutor, I’d insist on reviewing the file before making that determination. But because I’m Clinton’s BBQ Pit lawyer, I don’t have to, the burden is on you.
Let’s see, you want me to review all of appellate law for you? I’ll decline, but you are probably fishing for every inference from the facts construed to support the verdict? Sorry, no cite, off the top of my fucking head, lawyer man. How do you like them apples.
But let’s finish the demonstration of your incompentence in your chosen profession: it is my contention that to apply that complex/compound question, which is objectionble on it’s face, is as a matter of law, insufficient to support a criminal conviction. I infer that even Starr’s office agrees with me.
Now I note that Clinton’s lawyer objected and the judge cut him off, so the objection is preserved. See page 78, lines 17 to 18. Now you tell me that question isn’t by use of the definition, compound and complex, and therefore objectionable with a straight face. Go ahead, try it. Make an obtuse argument. You can’t base a conviction on this definition once an objection is raised and get it to stick. It will absolutely be overruled, as a matter of law. You’re a lawyer, you know this like the back of your hand. Bennett objected. You’ve got to rephrase if you want it to be admissable. I honestly cannot believe that a real live lawyer would think this question were permissible. You’ve changed your mind, right?
Not always, and yes.
In a criminal trial, the general proposition is that prior bad acts of the accused are inadmissble to prove that the accused acted in conformity therewith. The short vesion: you can’t bring up previous crimes to try to persuade the jury that the defendant did the same thing this time. This is called 404(b) evidence, after the evidence code section that forbids it.
However, you CAN bring up other crimes if you’re trying to prove something else. You can use past crimes to show a common plan, scheme, design, or absence of mistake. For example, if the accused is charged with dressing up like a clown and distracting bank tellers by spraying them with Silly String while snatching money out the the drawers, it would be very relevent - and very admissible - to show he was previously convicted for dressing up like a clown and spraying confetti at bank tellers to distract them while he snatched money. But it would NOT be relevant to bring up a prior conviction for armed robbery of a pharmacy, on the theory that it showed he was a robber. You see the difference?
The fact that prior convictions exist is also considered relevant for purposes of credibility. That is, if the accused testifies, his prior convictions may be admissible for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. In this instance, the judge would cautiont he jury that should consider the prior convictions only as they relate to credibility and likeliness of lying, not for evidence that he acted in a similar criminal fashion this time.
In a civil trial, the rules are different. While civil law is not my area of expertise, my understanding is that in a civil suit, with proper foundation, that sort of evidence is admissible at trial. It certainly is proper fodder for deposition questions, though, even if ultimately ruled inadmissible at trial.
If you’re judging from an historical record in which the United States has engaged in horrific overseas actions post-WWII (Nicaragua, I’m looking at you) and gotten away with it, I believe the answer is yes. The only folks who have been held responsible under this international law are the folks who have lost a war and essentially had to surrender control of their government to an enemy nation. That’s not happening here anytime soon.
Daniel
Well, I agree with you that I don’t know of a federal law that makes it illegal to lie to start a war. There may be one, but I’m not aware of it. That’s not counting false statements to a federal body, I’m pretty sure there are laws against that, but getting them to apply in a privileged setting like a joint session of Congress may not apply.
That said, losers of wars did used to get hanged after WWII for just such charges. Bushco is not likely to lose that badly. But I seem to recall that Kissinger still does not go to certain foreign countries to avoid war crimes charges from Vietnam. And that is what Judge Garzon tried to do to Pinochet when the went to England. Lucky for the old brute he didn’t go to Spain.
Thanks for clearing up some of my ignorance Bricker.
Your status as a lawyer is not, per se, the problem with your claims. But when you’re making a claim about a legal issue, and you’re applying incorrect standards or analyses to the issue, it’s certainly relevant to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about. There are other posters here that are not lawyers, but when they delve into the law, they are right on track.
You are not.
This refers to evidence offered, not to the form of a question. You’re arguing that the jury could and should infer that because a specific question was not asked of Clinton, the jury should infer that … what, exactly? And Lord knows why you’re quoting California law at me, but fine - let’s assume that we’re discussing generic principles of law. You’re saying that the failure to ask a more specific question of a witness at deposition time was indicative of the knowledge the examiner had that the deponent would answer truthfully if asked the more specific question?
How is that inference helpful to you?
Why is that the inference? Why not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion? The man had been impeached by the House. The underlying issuse on which the perjury rested was not earth-shattering. The acccused was willing to surrender his law license in exchange for foregoing an indictment. The prosecutor is charged with seeking justice. By all accounts, that was a reasonable accomodation to make.
Yes, that’s precisely what I wanted: an appellate court’s review construes all the facts on the record in the best possible light for the prevailing party below, resolving all conflicts in testimony in favor of the prevailing party.
Oh, this should be good.
Ahhh. You claim that because an objection was raised, the answer he gave should be stricken, and therefore, you can’t base a conviction on this answer.
Not quite. While Bennet did preserve his objection, he didn’t preserve the objection you claim he did:
The only objection Mr. Bennett offfered was that the witness could not remember the relevant definition. The judge overruled his objection, and noted that Bennet could show Clinton the definition at issue to cure the objection raised.
Even if Bennet had another objection, he waived it by repeating the so-called objectionable question during his own examination:
So if you brought this in front of an appellate court, the most they would do is consider your “compound and complex” assignment of error in the context of plain error. And I hardly need to tell you that under plain error, it does not compel reversal. (see Chapman v. California).
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the “complex and compound” objection was itself properly preserved. Even then, your argument fails, because Bennett proposed the exact same question himself and the President answered it identically.
Putz.
Well, the judge in charge of the Jones trial disagreed with you. It is HER call whether or not a particular line of questioning is the court’s business, not yours, and not Clintons. Once that ruling is made, it should be honored, or the integrity of our court system is comprimised. Paula Jones deserved a fair day in court, even if she is money-grubbing trailer trash, she’s a citizen of this country, it is her right to bring suit against someone who she thinks wronged her.
Truly, I don’t give a crap what Clinton does with his day, and who he does it with. But, when you enter a court of law, and give an oath to be truthful, you do it. You respect our courts, you don’t crap all over them just because it suits you. Especially when you’re a top elected official, you should be MORE interested in respecting our system of justice.
It doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with the specifics of Jones v Clinton, it’s a general contempt for the judicial process that gets my goat. Sure, I’ll agree to be questioned for this suit, but I’ll lie about anything I feel like, just because I don’t want the truth revealed. WTF is that?
We don’t have to compare Clinton to Bush, or to any bad acts by Bush. Clinton’s wrongdoings stand on their own, and can be considered on their own.
No, Bricker, you don’t know the law and you are the putz. You cannot base a conviction on that definition and question. Period.
If you disagree so, use your magic lawyer skills and get on Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis and find a case where a perjury conviction was upheld based on such a question. Alas, I have not claimed to be a lawyer, so I lack the magic skills necessary to do that. Sniff.
Let’s see, you argue that Starr’s office exercised prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute the only case they had because justice had been done. Hmmm. I agree and disagree at the same time. Starr’s office spent years and 70 million plus persecuting Clinton. They recommended impeachment and prosecuted a few people in AK and Julie Hiatt Steele in order suborn perjured testimony they would not give voluntarily. Only a convicted con man would cooperate. No, no. Discretion is not a word that can be fairly applied to Starr’s office. So I disagree on that. Was justice done? Kinda. So we agree there. The Senate acquitted Clinton, Julie Hiatt Steele was acquitted. That was justice. Starr has since admitted that maybe he want to far, I don’t remember his exact words. Clinton paid some civil penalties. Yeah, that’s justice except for the people selling everything they ever owned to defend themselves.
I now recall Susan McDougal also claimed that Starr wanted her to testify to things that she thought were lies against Clinton. Now McDougal is not terribly credible in my book, but it does correspond with the story of Julie Hiatt Steele and Monica Lewinsky that Starr threatened to prosecute them if they did not lie under oath. Lewinsky buckled, Steele did not. McDougal did not, and con woman or not, her jailing in solitarary confinement in chains was cruel and unusual punishment for her refusal to testify, incarceration alone like Judy Miller is enough.
Well, there is an appeal process. And the appellate court has the right to strike the whole line of questioning if they find she made an error in her ruling, which she did. The question was compound and complex and ambiguous.
Yeah, I know that’s the reality on the ground, that justice is applied by the victors. I had intended to make clear the level of morality, and the consequent claim to moral leadership we’re used to having, stemming from this clusterfuck.
Cheesesteak, while not disagreeing with your deplorement of contempt for the legal process, would you not agree that it can work both ways? Is using the legal process as a vehicle to conduct a political/personal vendetta not also an expression of contempt for it, also deserving of your scorn?
will this month never end?
Sigh.
Next week. I’ve lost my password so I’ll have to find a new name. But I’m thinking that I don’t want to wind up being the kind of jerk who has 10,000 plus posts and only contributes an insult to up a post count.
Hmmm. The only way you’ll agree that a conviction can be based on a particular, narrow type of compound question for which an objection to a different problem was raised and overruled is… if a similar case has already happened?
Not too likely.
However, the individual claim I’ve made about objections requiring the reason can certainly be substantiated.
In Virginia, to pick the example I’m most familiar with, Rule 5A:18 provides:
(Emphasis added). Bennett never objected to the question as “compound and complex”. That Rule shows that the judge’s decison permtting the question cannot be a basis for reversal.
There you go.
No, they don’t have the right to strike that question, because Bennett never objected to it as being compound and complex. Rule 5A:18.
And you never answered my further point – what about Bennett’s own question and answer, on page 204? He asked the question, and Clinton answered it. You’re not saying that Clinton can, on appeal, object to a question his own attorney asked him… are you?
yeppers, you nailed it all right, I’ve got over 10,000 posts containing nothing but insults. You’ve finally found me out - why I had the whole board fooled for years and yet you step in an instantly recognize that I live to insult folks.
I’ll go have a good cry now.
The mods can handle the password reset when you buy a membership.
I assume you’re not planning on re-registering under another name and continuing to post without paying, right?
Because that would be wrong.