On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:33:11PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
I'd think there'd be serious problems with most of the evidence in this case being hearsay, except stuff specifically posted by Jim Bell.
Remember that the subpoena delivered to JYA is for a grand jury appearance - not trial testimony (yet). Grand juries are supposed to protect the accused (in that they're supposed to be an early review of prosecution evidence) but have been twisted into investigatory tools where the production of secret testimony in an unstructured environment (traditional rules like the rule against hearsay evidence don't apply to grand jury proceedings) turn out to be very valuable to the persec, er, prosecution. If witness testimony suggests that other evidence of crimes may be available - say, maybe Witness X describes an email received from Person A, or produces a copy of that email - then investigators can go forth and seek corroborative evidence to support (or replace) Witness X's testimony at trial, perhaps with search warrants if they believe the holders of that evidence are not inclined to cooperate with subpoenas. And, as Bill alludes above, the rule against hearsay evidence does not apply to statements purportedly made by the opposing party (e.g., the defendant, in a criminal case), so messages allegedly from Jim Bell are likely to be admitted into evidence - Jim and/or his attorney will have an opportunity to argue that they should not be considered reliable evidence, or that if reliable they do not constitute criminal acts or elements of crime(s) charged. The mere possibility that evidence might be fabricated or altered will not keep it out of court, but only provide the basis for an argument that it should not be trusted. The jury or judge is free to accept or ignore that argument as their common sense or politics dictate. The "you can't trust email headers because they might be forged" argument didn't go far in CJ's trial, and they're not likely to fare much better elsewhere. The criminal trial system is perfectly comfortable with evidence whose theoretical (or actual) perfection and purity are less than ideal. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604