Bell Case Subpoena

[Greg Broiles]

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 at netbox.com
PO Box 897
Oakland CA 94604