Witness For The Prosecution Quotes

Curious things, habits. People themselves never knew they had them. [Witness for the Prosecution, also published in The Hound of Death and Other Stories.]

the prosecution witnesses. Skrdla also testified: “I have seen individuals who have taken it several hundred times and show no outward sign of any emotional disturbance while they are not on the drug.

There is a great similarity between legal evidence and historical evidence. The only difference lies in the fact that in legal evidence it is the judge who determines whether the account of a witness is acceptable or not... The historian is prosecuting attorney and defense attorney and the judge all rolled into one, and he is the narrator and the interpreter.

It was a good strategy but this is where I intended to turn her plans upside-down. In the courtroom there are three things for the lawyer to always consider: the knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. Whether at the prosecution or defense table, it is the lawyer’s job to master the first two and always be prepared for the third.

During my stay in the United States, I witnessed the spontaneous formation of committees in a country for the pursuit and prosecution of a man who had committed a great crime. In Europe, a criminal is an unhappy man who is struggling for his life against the agents of power, whilst the people are merely a spectator of the conflict: in America, he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.

Oh no, Jack, you're mixing up premonitions with intuition now. Come, now, Sir Alington, you must admit that premonitions are real?" To a certain extent, perhaps," admitted the physician cautiously. "But coincidence accounts for a good deal,and then there is the invariable tendency to make the most of a story afterwards -- you've always got to take that into account." "I don't think there is any such thing as premonition," said Claire Tent, rather abruptly. "Or intuition, or a sixth sense, or any of the things we talk about so glibly. We go through life like a train rushing through the darkness to an unknown destination.

We must know something about malevolence, about how to recognize it, and about how not to make excuses for it. We must know that we cannot expect fair play. That is, perhaps, most crucial of all. Those of us who practice in this field must face the implications of the fact that we are dealing with sexual abuse. Child sex offenders-people who exploit children’s bodies and betray their trust-are not going to hesitate to lie outright. This is obvious but nonetheless frequently seems to catch people by surprise. Confessions of a Whistle-Blower: Lessons Learned Author: Anna C. Salter. Ethics & Behavior, Volume 8, Issue 2 June 1998

Garr, who, in addition to his role as evidence manager, was a key witness for the prosecution, never revealed his conflicts to Michael’s lawyers or to the Court. His bosses in the police and prosecutor’s office apparently knew of his covert deal and urged him to keep it quiet.

Atticus took his career in his hands, made good use of a careless indictment, took his stand before a jury, and accomplished what was never before or afterwards done in Maycomb County: he won an acquittal for a colored boy on a rape charge. The chief witness for the prosecution was a white girl.

The only witnesses heard were those of the prosecution. Defense witnesses were not permitted to testify. (Oh, how familiar it all is! More and more!)

Freeman was a damn good prosecutor but in my view she didn’t play fair. A trial was supposed to be a spirited contesting of facts and evidence. Both sides with equal footing in the law and the rules of the game. But using the rules to hide or withhold facts and evidence was the routine with Freeman. She liked a tiled game. She didn’t carry the light. She didn’t even see the light.

If the case isn't plea bargained, dismissed or placed on the inactive docket for an indefinite period of time, if by some perverse twist of fate it becomes a trial by jury, you will then have the opportunity of sitting on the witness stand and reciting under oath the facts of the case-a brief moment in the sun that clouds over with the appearance of the aforementioned defense attorney who, at worst, will accuse you of perjuring yourself in a gross injustice or, at best, accuse you of conducting an investigation so incredibly slipshod that the real killer has been allowed to roam free. Once both sides have argued the facts of the case, a jury of twelve men and women picked from computer lists of registered voters in one of America's most undereducated cities will go to a room and begin shouting. If these happy people manage to overcome the natural impulse to avoid any act of collective judgement, they just may find one human being guilty of murdering another. Then you can go to Cher's Pub at Lexington and Guilford, where that selfsame assistant state's attorney, if possessed of any human qualities at all, will buy you a bottle of domestic beer. And you drink it. Because in a police department of about three thousand sworn souls, you are one of thirty-six investigators entrusted with the pursuit of that most extraordinary of crimes: the theft of a human life. You speak for the dead. You avenge those lost to the world. Your paycheck may come from fiscal services but, goddammit, after six beers you can pretty much convince yourself that you work for the Lord himself. If you are not as good as you should be, you'll be gone within a year or two, transferred to fugitive, or auto theft or check and fraud at the other end of the hall. If you are good enough, you will never do anything else as a cop that matters this much. Homicide is the major leagues, the center ring, the show. It always has been. When Cain threw a cap into Abel, you don't think The Big Guy told a couple of fresh uniforms to go down and work up the prosecution report. Hell no, he sent for a fucking detective. And it will always be that way, because the homicide unit of any urban police force has for generations been the natural habitat of that rarefied species, the thinking cop.

Now a witness was called who testified that he found Muff Potter washing in the brook, at an early hour of the morning that the murder was discovered, and that he immediately sneaked away. After some further questioning, counsel for the prosecution said: "Take the witness." The prisoner raised his eyes for a moment, but dropped them again when his own counsel said: "I have no questions to ask him." The next witness proved the finding of the knife near the corpse. Counsel for the prosecution said: "Take the witness." "I have no questions to ask him," Potter's lawyer replied. A third witness swore he had often seen the knife in Potter's possession. "Take the witness." Counsel for Potter declined to question him. The faces of the audience began to betray annoyance. Did this attorney mean to throw away his client's life without an effort?

During voir dire, the interviews for jury selection, each person is asked under oath about their experience with the criminal justice system, as defendant or victim, but usually not even the most elementary effort is made to corroborate those claims. One ADA [Associate District Attorney] told me about inheriting a murder case, after the first jury deadlocked. He checked the raps for the jurors and found that four had criminal records. None of those jurors were prosecuted. Nor was it policy to prosecute defense witnesses who were demonstrably lying--by providing false alibis, for example--because, as another ADA told me, if they win the case, they don't bother, and if they lose, "it looks like sour grapes." A cop told me about a brawl at court one day, when he saw court officers tackle a man who tried to escape from the Grand Jury. An undercover was testifying about a buy when the juror recognized him as someone he had sold to. Another cop told me about locking up a woman for buying crack, who begged for a Desk Appearance Ticket, because she had to get back to court, for jury duty--she was the forewoman on a Narcotics case, of course. The worst part about these stories is that when I told them to various ADAs, none were at all surprised; most of those I'd worked with I respected, but the institutionalized expectations were abysmal. They were too used to losing and it showed in how they played the game.

Some readers may find it a curious or even unscientific endeavour to craft a criminological model of organised abuse based on the testimony of survivors. One of the standard objections to qualitative research is that participants may lie or fantasise in interview, it has been suggested that adults who report severe child sexual abuse are particularly prone to such confabulation. Whilst all forms of research, whether qualitative or quantitative, may be impacted upon by memory error or false reporting. there is no evidence that qualitative research is particularly vulnerable to this, nor is there any evidence that a fantasy— or lie—prone individual would be particularly likely to volunteer for research into child sexual abuse. Research has consistently found that child abuse histories, including severe and sadistic abuse, are accurate and can be corroborated (Ross 2009, Otnow et al. 1997, Chu et al. 1999). Survivors of child abuse may struggle with amnesia and other forms of memory disturbance but the notion that they are particularly prone to suggestion and confabulation has yet to find a scientific basis. It is interesting to note that questions about the veracity of eyewitness evidence appear to be asked far more frequently in relation to sexual abuse and rape than in relation to other crimes. The research on which this book is based has been conducted with an ethical commitment to taking the lives and voices of survivors of organised abuse seriously.

we wish to prosecute the thesis that in a world with a human propensity for evil, greed and injustice, liberal democracy stands as the least worst option for human governance. Liberal democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a just society, but it can be an enabling condition for a just society.

My view is that the false memory campaign is a spent force. It failed to realize its key goals, failed to renew itself and has largely faded away. Of course, the false memory campaign has left behind the sedimentation of doubt and disbelief that we will have to keep chipping away at. However it is important to recognise that we are witnessing an increasing, not decreasing, number of investigations and prosecutions for cases of organised and ritual abuse. Adults and children who disclose sexual abuse are more likely to be believed now than they were ten or twenty years ago, and that includes victims who describe organised and ritual abuse.

This problem can be illustrated with a mock analogy. Imagine in your golden years you are accused of murdering a child many decades ago and put on trial for it. The prosecution claims you murdered a little girl in the middle of a public wedding in front of thousands of guests. But as evidence all they present is a religious tract written by ‘John’ which lays out a narrative in which the wedding guests watch you kill her. Who is this John? The prosecution confesses they don’t know. When did he write this narrative? Again, unknown. Probably thirty or forty years after the crime, maybe even sixty. Who told John this story? Again, no one knows. He doesn’t say. So why should this even be admissible as evidence? Because the narrative is filled with accurate historical details and reads like an eyewitness account. Is it an eyewitness account? Well, no, John is repeating a story told to him. Told to him by an eyewitness? Well . . . we really have no way of knowing how many people the story passed through before it came to John and he wrote it down. Although he does claim an eyewitness told him some of the details. Who is that witness? He doesn’t say. I see. So how can we even believe the story is in any way true if it comes from unknown sources through an unknown number of intermediaries? Because there is no way the eyewitnesses to the crime, all those people at the wedding, would have allowed John to lie or make anything up, even after thirty to sixty years, so there is no way the account can be fabricated. If that isn’t obviously an absurd argument to you, then you didn’t understand what has just been said and you need to read that paragraph again until you do. Because

A preliminary hearing is a routine step on the way to a trial. It is one hundred percent the prosecution's show. The state is charged with presenting its case to the court and the judge then rules on whether there is sufficient evidence to take it forward to a jury trial. This isn't the reasonable doubt threshold. Not even close. The judge only has to decide if a preponderance of evidence supports the charges. If so, then the next stop is a full-blown trial.

No small part in the new awareness of the horrors of genocide was a willingness of Holocaust survivors to tell their stories. Chalk and Jonassohn note that these memoirs are historically unusual.146 Survivors of earlier genocides had treated them as humiliating defeats and felt that talking about them would only rub in history’s harsh verdict. With the new humanitarian sensibilities, genocides became crimes against humanity, and survivors were witnesses for the prosecution.

For three days, I couldn’t take my eyes off Goering, who lounged in the dock like a bored Roman emperor… As concentration camp survivors testified, I sometimes caught Goering’s cold, unblinking stare, which was full of contempt for the Tribunal and the witnesses. When the prosecution showed films of piled-up corpses at Auschwitz, Goering kept turning his head away, sometimes in my direction. I’m ashamed to say he stared me down, because I’d never before felt myself in the presence of such unmitigated evil.

The job of judging this shy, rejected young woman has fallen on your shoulders, but you must base that judgment on the facts presented in this case, in this courtroom, not on rumors or feelings from the past twenty-four years. “What are the true and solid facts?” Just as with the prosecution, Kya’s mind caught only snippets. “. . . the prosecution has not even proved that this incident was indeed a murder and not simply a tragic accident. No murder weapon, no wounds from being pushed, no witnesses, no fingerprints . . .

As for the now-iconic “Hands up, don’t shoot” claim, the DOJ report is withering: “There are no credible witness accounts that state that Brown was clearly attempting to surrender when Wilson shot him. As detailed throughout this report, those witnesses who say so have given accounts that could not be relied upon in a prosecution because they are irreconcilable with the physical evidence, inconsistent with the credible accounts of other eyewitnesses, inconsistent with the witness’s own prior statements, or in some instances, because the witnesses have acknowledged that their initial accounts were untrue.

We who are Americans witness in this hour the exhaustion of the American revolutionary ethic. Wherever we turn, that is what is to be seen: in the ironic public policy of internal colonialism symbolized by the victimization of the welfare population, in the usurpation of the federal budget—and thus, the sacrifice of the nation’s material and moral necessities—by an autonomous military-scientific-intelligence principality, by the police aggressions against black citizens, by political prosecutions of dissenters, by official schemes to intimidate the media and vitiate the First Amendment, by cynical designs to demean and neutralize the courts.

Treason the only crime defined in the Constitution. Tyranny as under the Stuart and Tudor kings characterized by the elimination of political dissent under the laws of treason. Treason statutes which were many and unending, the instrument by which the monarch eliminated his opposition and also added to his wealth. The property of the executed traitor forfeited by his heirs because of the loathsomeness of his crime. The prosecution of treason, like witchcraft, an industry. Founding Fathers extremely sensitive to the establishment of a tyranny in this country by means of ambiguous treason law. Themselves traitors under British law. Under their formulation it became possible to be guilty of treason only against the nation, not the individual ruler or party. Treason was defined as an action rather than thought or speech. "Treason against the US shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid & Comfort...No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same Overt act, or on Confession in Open Court." This definition, by members of the constitutional convention, intended that T could not be otherwise defined short of constitutional amendment. "The decision to impose constitutional safeguards on treason prosecutions formed part of a broad emerging American tradition of liberalism...No American has ever been executed for treason against his country," says Nathaniel Weyl, Treason the story of disloyalty and betrayal in American history, published in the year 1950. I say if this be treason make the most of it.

The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, based on the victim’s mental illness, inconsistent statements, drinking or drug use. These classifications were thus made in violation of the explicit policies of their own police agencies. There searchers therefore supplemented the information contained in the police files by collecting many different types of additional data, including: reports from forensic examiners, questionnaires completed by police investigators, interviews with victims and victim service providers, and content analyses of the statements made by victims and witnesses. They then proceeded to evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan,2005). On the basis of this analysis, the percentage of false reports dropped to 2.5%." Lonsway, Kimberly A., Joanne Archambault, and David Lisak. "False reports: Moving beyond the issue to successfully investigate and prosecute non-stranger sexual assault." The Voice 3.1 (2009): 1-11.

Every so often, the gods stop laughing long enough to do something terrible. There are few facts that are not brutal. The bitter, insufficient truth is that God recovered, but fun is dead. Alcohol: the antidote to civilization. Alcoholism is a fatal disease. But then I am not a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, because I don't want to be cured. Alcoholism is suicide with training wheels. I watch myself sinking, an inch at a time, and I spit into the eye of fate, like Doc Holliday, who died too weak to lift a playing card. My traitorous and degenerate attitude is sort of my book review of the world we live in. I resign from the human race. I declare myself null and void; folded, spindled, and mutilated. . . .This bar is an oasis for the night people, the street people, the invisible tribe, the people who simply do not exist in the orderly world we see in Time - the weekly science fiction magazine published by the Pentagon - an orderly world which is a sanitized Emerald City populated by contented Munchkins who pay taxes to buy tanks, nerve gas, and bombers and not a world which is a bus-station toilet where the air is a chemical cocktail of cancer-causing agents, children are starving, and the daily agenda is kill or be killed. When the world demands that you be larger than life, and you are finding it hard enough just being life-size, you can come here, in the messy hemorrhaging of reality, let your hair down, take your girdle off, and not be embarrassed by your wounds and deformities. Here among the terminally disenchanted you are graded not by the size of the car on display in your driveway but by the size of your courage in the face of nameless things. . . .Half of these people look like they just came back from the moon, and all of them are sworn witnesses for the prosecution on the charge that Earth serves as Hell for some other planet.

Imagine you are Emma Faye Stewart, a thirty-year-old, single African American mother of two who was arrested as part of a drug sweep in Hearne, Texas.1 All but one of the people arrested were African American. You are innocent. After a week in jail, you have no one to care for your two small children and are eager to get home. Your court-appointed attorney urges you to plead guilty to a drug distribution charge, saying the prosecutor has offered probation. You refuse, steadfastly proclaiming your innocence. Finally, after almost a month in jail, you decide to plead guilty so you can return home to your children. Unwilling to risk a trial and years of imprisonment, you are sentenced to ten years probation and ordered to pay $1,000 in fines, as well as court and probation costs. You are also now branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps; you may be discriminated against in employment; you cannot vote for at least twelve years; and you are about to be evicted from public housing. Once homeless, your children will be taken from you and put in foster care. A judge eventually dismisses all cases against the defendants who did not plead guilty. At trial, the judge finds that the entire sweep was based on the testimony of a single informant who lied to the prosecution. You, however, are still a drug felon, homeless, and desperate to regain custody of your children. Now place yourself in the shoes of Clifford Runoalds, another African American victim of the Hearne drug bust.2 You returned home to Bryan, Texas, to attend the funeral of your eighteen-month-old daughter. Before the funeral services begin, the police show up and handcuff you. You beg the officers to let you take one last look at your daughter before she is buried. The police refuse. You are told by prosecutors that you are needed to testify against one of the defendants in a recent drug bust. You deny witnessing any drug transaction; you don’t know what they are talking about. Because of your refusal to cooperate, you are indicted on felony charges. After a month of being held in jail, the charges against you are dropped. You are technically free, but as a result of your arrest and period of incarceration, you lose your job, your apartment, your furniture, and your car. Not to mention the chance to say good-bye to your baby girl. This is the War on Drugs. The brutal stories described above are not isolated incidents, nor are the racial identities of Emma Faye Stewart and Clifford Runoalds random or accidental. In every state across our nation, African Americans—particularly in the poorest neighborhoods—are subjected to tactics and practices that would result in public outrage and scandal if committed in middle-class white neighborhoods.

The prosecution is supposed to tell the defense every detail of their case, their evidence , witnesses, everything. But the defense doesn't have to reveal anything . often the prosecution has no idea what the defense case will be till they hear it live and in person in the courtroom. Prosecutors have many other advantages --- most notably the tight connection with law enforcement, the institutional resources, and usually the judge. But in the department of foreknowledge, they were vulnerable

Ultimately, the DoJ’s report found that Brown’s rights were not violated, and it even addressed the incessant “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative: “Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision. While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.

Prosecuting young Aaron isn’t going to be easy. They’ll have to treat Sheila as a hostile witness, because she won’t give evidence against him. It’s a gift to his defence.’ ‘The prosecution will just have to cope.

I can appeal to you as the apostle does to his bearers, Gal. iv. 13, “Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you.” I have spent the prime of my life and strength in labors for your eternal welfare. You are my witnesses, that what strength I have had I have not neglected in idleness, nor laid out in prosecuting worldly schemes and managing temporal affairs, for the advancement of my outward estate, and aggrandizing myself and family; but have given myself wholly to the work of the ministry, laboring in it night and day, rising early and applying myself to this great business to which Christ appointed me.

Women were the devil when they got their knife into you.

I accused twenty-two SS officers, including six SS generals, of murdering in cold blood over a million people. Relying on the documents and without calling a single witness, I rested the prosecution’s case after two days. I was twenty-seven years old and it was my first case.

Police officers, like all other witnesses, can be criminally prosecuted for perjury, the Court said, which provided an adequate deterrent to perjury.

The Hercule Poirot Reading List It is possible to read the Poirot stories in any order. If you want to consider them chronologically (in terms of Poirot’s lifetime), we recommend the following: ❑ The Mysterious Affair at Styles [1920] ❑ The Murder on the Links [1923] ❑ The Regatta Mystery and Other Stories (US Short Story Collection) [1939] ❑ Poirot Investigates (Short Story Collection) [1924] ❑ Poirot’s Early Cases (Short Story Collection) [1974] ❑ The Murder of Roger Ackroyd [1926] ❑ The Big Four [1927] ❑ The Mystery of the Blue Train [1928] ❑ Peril at End House [1932] ❑ Lord Edgware Dies [1933] ❑ Murder on the Orient Express [1934] ❑ Three Act Tragedy [1935] ❑ Death in the Clouds [1935] ❑ Poirot and the Regatta Mystery (Published in The Complete Short Stories: Hercule Poirot) [1936] ❑ The ABC Murders [1936] ❑ Murder in Mesopotamia [1936] ❑ Cards on the Table [1936] ❑ The Witness for the Prosecution and Other Stories (US Short Story Collection) [1948] ❑ Murder in the Mews (Short Story Collection) [1938] ❑ Dumb Witness [1937] ❑ Death on the Nile [1937] ❑ Appointment with Death [1937] ❑ Hercule Poirot’s Christmas [1938] ❑ Sad Cypress [1940] ❑ One, Two Buckle My Shoe [1940] ❑ Evil Under the Sun [1941] ❑ Five Little Pigs [1942] ❑ The Hollow [1946] ❑ The Labours of Hercules (Short Story Collection) [1947] ❑ Taken at the Flood [1945] ❑ Mrs. McGinty’s Dead [1952] ❑ After the Funeral [1953] ❑ Hickory Dickory Dock [1955] ❑ Hercule Poirot and the Greenshore Folly [2014] ❑ Dead Man’s Folly [1956] ❑ Cat Among the Pigeons [1959] ❑ Double Sin and Other Stories (US Short Story Collection) [1961] ❑ The Under Dog and Other Stories (US Short Story Collection) [1951] ❑ The Harlequin Tea Set and Other Stories (US Short Story Collection) [1997] ❑ The Clocks [1963] ❑ Third Girl [1966] ❑ Hallowe’en Party [1969] ❑ Elephants Can Remember [1972] ❑ Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case [1975]

Defending a criminal charge can be stressful. Whether it is a minor or a major crime, it can affect the defendants' lives. In addition to the time and money spent, a conviction can also bring prison penalties. An attorney's job is to ensure that their client is treated fairly by the criminal justice system. The defense lawyer must prove that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. To do this, they must investigate the case. They will question witnesses and examine the police and prosecutors' evidence. This is where they can uncover hidden laws or other facts that could help their client's defense. After they have heard the client's side of the story, the defense lawyer will begin to develop a strategy. These strategies can vary according to the particular circumstances of the case. One such strategy is to appeal to the jury's emotions. Using emotional appeals effectively shows that the defendant tried to avoid the crime before it happened. It can also help the defendant to gain sympathy from the judge. Another strategy is to find an alibi for the defendant. The lawyer can argue for the defendant's innocence by showing that the defendant did something before the crime.

They democratized access to capital for the 99 percent of companies previously unable to access the public market. They started a financial revolution and fueled unprecedented economic growth from the late 1970s that continues to this day.

On the plaque was inscribed the poem “If,” by Rudyard Kipling: If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or being hated, don’t give way to hating, And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise: If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!” If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

The 1696 Act would provide for the right to consult lawyers in the pretrial for the purpose of developing defensive proofs, and for advance disclosure of the indictment and the names of prospective jurors.91 The Act did not, however, call for the disclosure of information about prosecution witnesses or their projected testimony, the step now known as pretrial discovery of the prosecution case. (Discovery of this sort would long be resisted, ostensibly for fear that persons allied with the defendant might intimidate or otherwise interfere with the accusing witnesses.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. - Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution

The implicit remedy for this one-sidedness, and the route that would be mapped out in the Treason Trials Act of 1696, was two-sidedness. The preamble to the Act would trumpet the principle of equalizing the defense, a principle that the Act would implement most fundamentally by allowing the defendant to have access to counsel both in the pretrial and at trial. Persons accused of treason would be allowed to defend themselves in the way the state prosecuted them, with lawyers. The accused would be allowed the help of lawyers to prepare defensive evidence in the pretrial, to examine defense witnesses and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and to serve as advocates at trial.

After selecting and swearing in a hand-picked jury, the prosecution then lowered the bar for the amount of evidence necessary to convict. Traditionally, in a treason trial, a minimum of two witnesses was required to prove guilt. Bridgeman announced that one witness would now be sufficient.

The Accuser said, “I petition the court for a change of venue on the grounds that this heavenly court places the defense at great advantage and the prosecution at great disadvantage. I petition the court for jury nullification on the grounds that the myriad of heavenly host are incapable of impartial witness because of overriding prejudicial bias in favor of the defendant. I petition the judge to recuse himself on the grounds of conflict of interest as he is the defendant in his own trial and therefore cannot be impartial and unbiased. And I petition the judge for the removal of the defense attorney next to me on the grounds of his lack of legal qualifications for this case.

How many Nephilim troops are mustered?” he asked. “Thirty thousand.” Thirty thousand Nephilim storming Eden? “Are the other Watchers joining the battle?” said Methuselah. “No,” said Ohyah. “Why would Elohim not send his heavenly host right now to stop it?” “Because the other Watchers have employed the Accuser to prosecute a lawsuit in the heavenly court at the same time. So the Sons of God are required as witnesses and counsel. It was all a diversion.

John & Mobay Africa presented their case. Some days John Africa would lean back in his chair and close his eyes. His court appointed attorney told him one day that if he continued to go off to sleep, it would hurt his case. His response was: “I’ll hurt my case if I don’t sleep!” The guy never said anything more to him about sleeping.   No matter what questions were asked of witnesses by the prosecution, there was never an objection made by either John or Mobay Africa. My sister LaVerne and I were asked about this at a later date. We explained that there were no objections made by either of them because that would suggest they only had a problem with the part they were objecting to. When in fact, they objected to all of it! . . . and so it went until it was time for closing arguments. Much of John Africa’s closing is as follows:

every day. John & Mobay Africa presented their case. Some days John Africa would lean back in his chair and close his eyes. His court appointed attorney told him one day that if he continued to go off to sleep, it would hurt his case. His response was: “I’ll hurt my case if I don’t sleep!” The guy never said anything more to him about sleeping.   No matter what questions were asked of witnesses by the prosecution, there was never an objection made by either John or Mobay Africa. My sister LaVerne and I were asked about this at a later date. We explained that there were no objections made by either of them because that would suggest they only had a problem with the part they were objecting to. When in fact, they objected to all of it! . . . and so it went until it was time for closing arguments. Much of John Africa’s closing is as follows:

John & Mobay Africa presented their case. Some days John Africa would lean back in his chair and close his eyes. His court appointed attorney told him one day that if he continued to go off to sleep, it would hurt his case. His response was: “I’ll hurt my case if I don’t sleep!” The guy never said anything more to him about sleeping.   No matter what questions were asked of witnesses by the prosecution, there was never an objection made by either John or Mobay Africa. My sister LaVerne and I were asked about this at a later date. We explained that there were no objections made by either of them because that would suggest they only had a problem with the part they were objecting to. When in fact, they objected to all of it! . . . and so it went until it was time for closing arguments. Much of John Africa’s closing is as follows:   “Ona MOVE! Now we have to understand what this case is about. This case is about evidence. Now it’s evident that we’ve got some bottles and pipes and some people sitting around with those bottles and pipes, and we’ ve got some so-call bombs over there that are supposed to belong to myself and my brother. But as you can see, evidently the bombs are on that side of the room. We’ve been charged with terrorizing the city and making threats on civilians and the like. And they want to find us guilty for this, but they don’t want to find us innocent, and that’s tragic because you see, if I were running the system and I wanted to clear up the system, I wouldn’t go around looking for guilty people. I would go around looking for innocent people and if I found some guilty people, I would convert them into being innocent and not guilty. Because when you’re guilty, you’re a criminal, according to the way this man thinks. And when you’re innocent, you’re not. So what will be the point of trying to find somebody guilty and making a criminal out of that person when the only thing a criminal can do is to influence crime. It would seem to me that if you want to solve the problem of somebody, you wouldn’t be looking to find that person guilty, find that person wrong, find that person innocent—or guilty. You would look—would be looking to find that person innocent because innocence is right and guilt is wrong, and you cannot get right from wrong or wrong from right.   What is the point of finding somebody wrong if you’re trying to make somebody right? What is the point of having a society that looks to find somebody criminal if you’re trying to get rid of crime? What is the point of having society convicting people of things they are told that they did, rather than things that they have seen that they have done? Do you know what evidence is? Evidence is what you see before you, and what I see before me are bombs on that man’s table. What I see before me are jugs on that man’s table. What I see before me are charges that that man put on me, but he’s not charging me with what is right. He’s not charging me with innocence. He’s not charging me with substance, he’s charging me with guilt. What did I do with guilt? Why are you charging me with guilt? Charge me with something that has substance, something that’s going to make me well if you feel that I’m sick. Something that’s going to make me healthy if you feel that I’m unhealthy. Something that’s going to make me strong if you feel that I’m not strong. I’m not a guilty man, I’m an innocent man! I didn’t come here to make trouble or bring trouble. But to bring the truth, an goddammit, that’s what I’m gonna do!

I just tried one where my client claimed he was urinating in a back alley. Turns out he was jerking off on a street corner. The prosecution had twenty-one witnesses. They were nuns.” She looked pained. “I understand,” I said gently, patting her on the back.

TO JUDGE OR NOT TO JUDGE When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7 HCSB The warning of Matthew 7:1 is clear: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (KJV). Yet even the most devoted Christians may fall prey to a powerful yet subtle temptation: the temptation to judge others. But as obedient followers of Christ, we are commanded to refrain from such behavior. As Jesus came upon a young woman who had been condemned by the Pharisees, He spoke not only to the crowd that was gathered there, but also to all generations when He warned, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7 KJV). Christ’s message is clear, and it applies not only to the Pharisees of ancient times, but also to us. Judging draws the judgment of others. Catherine Marshall Christians think they are prosecuting attorneys or judges, when, in reality, God has called all of us to be witnesses. Warren Wiersbe A TIMELY TIP To the extent you judge others, so, too, will you be judged. So you must, to the best of your ability, refrain from judgmental thoughts and words.

according to Thorp, “All that was necessary to cause swift vengeance to fall upon the heads of the evil-doers was done. They were chased and beaten with clubs and captured. The Confederate authorities rendered assistance in the prosecutions, which followed by allowing a jury to be impaneled and a regular court to be instituted with able lawyers from among the prisoners as judges and counsel for the defense and prosecution. The witnesses were subpoenaed, and after a fair and impartial trial, six of the raiders were convicted and hanged, and from that time forward flanking and raiding were unknown among the prisoners

I want to remind you that the defendant is presumed to be innocent. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove her innocence or call any witnesses or introduce any evidence.

Don’t be fooled by their hypocrisy and double standards. They have no honor, moral standards, ethics, principles or integrity. It is never about right or wrong, but it is about which side they are on, who is paying them and who is also on the payroll. When it is one of their own who does wrong or who commits crime. They will never call them out. Prosecute, judge, arrest, cancel, confront, expose, seek answers or humiliate them. They wont comment or make any statements . They will be silent like nothing happened because they protect each other and protect their interests. When it is not one of their own. All hell will break lose. They would have 24/7 coverage on every news channel or newspaper, on the front pages. Having their own sketchy, bias headline, analysts, experts, professors, influences, investigators, journalists and witnesses. They would even blow it out of proposition. Making remarks and statement seeking answers. Challenging the court ,government and the people. They are all puppets and there is someone pulling the strings. They are all owned by the same master.

There were no longer judges, lawyers, or gendarmes in the place, but only intent eyes and deeply troubled hearts. No man considered the part he might be called upon to play. The prosecutor forgot that he was there to prosecute, the presiding judge that he was there to pass sentence, the defender that he was there to defend. And, most strikingly, no question was raised, no legal authority invoked. It is the quality of awesome events that they seize upon the soul and make all men participants. Perhaps no one in that place was fully conscious of his own feelings, and certainly no one said to himself that he was witnessing the splendour of a great light; but all were dazzled by it.

The complaint was lodged by Daniel du Plantier as well as Georges and Marguerite Bouniol before the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris on 17 January 1997, just 25 days after Sophie’s death. Such complaints can serve another long-term purpose: under France’s Napoleonic Code, it was possible for French authorities to conduct a domestic investigation into a crime that had occurred outside their jurisdiction. All that was required was that the crime involved a French citizen. It did not matter that the suspect was not on French soil or that the bulk of witnesses were outside French jurisdiction. It also did not matter that the original investigation was not carried out by French police. The Napoleonic Code–amended under further French statutes in the 1960s–provided France with all the legal powers required to conduct a full investigation and, if necessary, a prosecution.

Critically, the French investigative team would also be given whatever support they required in Ireland, including full access to the original garda murder file. This ensured that the French investigators would have access to all witness statements, forensic reports, the crime scene photographs and the post-mortem examination file of State Pathologist Professor John Harbison. If the French police team had not had access to the Irish files, an investigation would be fatally compromised from the outset. This granting of access was unprecedented. It also confirmed, beyond any doubt, that no action would ever be taken by the DPP over the garda case file in Ireland. Any such action would be critically undermined from the very start by the fact that access to the file had been given to someone outside the Irish judicial process–and would open any future prosecution, even one taken on the basis of new evidence, to an immediate legal challenge based on a breach of process. While it was never confirmed, the astonishing level of access granted to Magistrate Gachon and his police team was clearly the result of consultations between Paris and Dublin at the very highest levels. Even allowing for existing European judicial and police cooperation protocols, journalists covering the case–including myself–felt the level of access given to the French was astonishing.

November 30 Hear all sides and you will be enlightened. Hear one side and you will be in the dark. Wei Zheng Everyone perceives things through their own lens. There are very few people who can give you an unbiased opinion on any subject. If you have five people who witness a fight, you will get five different accounts of what happened, maybe not on the main points, but they will differ concerning the details. For this reason, it is always wise to hear all sides of the story before you form any opinions. True life court shows on television demonstrate this fact. They will go through the evidence and present the prosecution’s side of the case, and you think to yourself, “this guy is guilty as sin,” but when the defense presents their case, many times you start to see things in a different light. Don’t be too quick to form a decision. Once you have heard all sides of the issue, then you can form your opinion concerning the matter at hand. Strive to see things as they really are, not as they appear. Look for the truth. Too many people make decisions without having all of the pertinent information needed to come to a wise conclusion. Without all the information, you’re just guessing. Don’t be too quick to totally trust the information that you receive from someone else. Trust but verify. Don’t be duped, hear all sides before you make important decisions. Make sure that what you think is truly what you think, and not simply someone else’s thoughts which have been seeded in your mind. I hear all sides before I act.

Dep. Daniel Laws, the last witness for the prosecution, replaced Frank on the stand, stated he’d been on P.M. watch at the jail’s hospital wing and had guarded Richard for about a year and a half altogether. He stated that on October 30, Richard had beckoned him to his cell, saying, “ ‘Laws, come here.’ ” “What did you do?” Halpin asked the deputy. “I went over.” “What did the defendant do?” “He showed me two pictures of a homicide victim.” “Can you describe them?” “The first picture was of a woman [Maxine Zazzara]. The photograph showed from the face down. She was nude. “And then the second photograph had the same woman lying on the bed with her head turned away from the camera.” “Did he—did the defendant say anything at that time?” “Not at that time.” “Did you ask him why he was showing you the pictures?” “Yes. I did.” “What did he say?” “He said, ‘People come up here and call me a punk and I show them the photographs and tell them there is blood behind the Night Stalker and they go away all pale.’ ” Halpin handed the deputy two photographs of Mrs. Zazzara and he identified them as the ones Richard had shown him. Halpin now moved into evidence a four-page list, then announced, “The state rests.

The guard and the morning-walker’s depositions threw up the following suggestion: if you have lost a loved one in a violent crime and do not weep at the exact times future witnesses for the prosecution arrive at your home, then you must be guilty.

By 'Perry Mason moment,' I mean that climactic instant during a trial when you have just done something fantastic and everyone in the courtroom knows it. Your brilliant question or some stunning admission you coerced from a witness has left the opposing lawyer reeling, his mouth agape, and jurors amazed and entertained. The case is won; the rest of the trial is a formality. Your friends and colleagues are itching to congratulate you as soon as a recess is called. Only a supreme effort of will on your part, coupled with the knowledge that the judge and jurors are watching, keeps you from high-fiving everyone in sight.

Suppressed memories, like witnesses to un-prosecuted crimes, clamoured for attention.

The church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber dislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness. —Robert Green Ingersoll

I say this without being facetious, because all the Home Office needs to deport these immigrants is a claim that they are not conducive to the common good on the balance of probabilities – they do not even need to have been convicted of an offence by a criminal court. Not only that, but the immigrants are not able to appeal the decision, challenge the allegations made against them, or have the possibility of them or their legal representatives cross-examine any witnesses. Just think about that and its implications for a second. In the UK, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But in the case of immigrants, the police can simply choose not to bother referring the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, and instead refer it to the Home Office for them to be deported. And again, it’s important to remember that the police can do this even if the individual has not committed a criminal offence.

suspect he will be cleared of wrongdoing in the future. History books will show him to be a great patriot and, perhaps, the star witness in the prosecution of corruption.

The tiredness induced by a long walk expresses itself first in a trancelike state, where insidious, aggressive thoughts bubble up without your realizing it, then in mild hallucinations, before ending in euphoric confusion. The hypochondriacal obsession. Once all protection is secured, it is from the inside that the body is overexposed to all assaults and disruptions. Against the disorders that ensue there is only the character armour, which does not even allow the signals from the body to show through. Wariness of one's nearest and dearest, as though they were potential witnesses for the prosecution in your existence, evidence of guilt in a trial that is permanently suspended. The panda that is having trouble reproducing: they show him porn films to rouse his libido.

Prosecutors can still pursue domestic violence cases without victim testimony or cooperation. I recently sat in on a conference where a prosecutor from San Diego, Marnie Layon, gave examples of viable post-Crawford evidence: a victim’s demeanor, a platter of food spilled across the floor, independent witness observation, frantic calls or text messages to family and friends for help, social media posts... Today, 'what I’ve seen in prosecutors’ units is domestic violence fatigue,' Ms. Gardner said. Crawford doesn’t make prosecution impossible, but it makes things 'complicated, too nuanced,' she added. 'We’re kind of going backward.' Perpetrators, she said, 'are not being prosecuted as often as they could and should be.' In other words, 'the barrier to evidence-based prosecution is not about evidence,' as Mr. Gwinn told me not long ago. It never really was. It’s about the kind of violence that is deemed worthy of state attention

Although the judge himself conceded that the structures shown to tourists at Auschwitz are not the original “gas chambers,” he nevertheless proceeded to reject every exhibit and expert witness for the defense on the grounds that the Auschwitz gas chambers have been historically proven. “If that is true,” the attorney interjected, “what would anyone have to lose by permitting Rudolf to testify?” Judge Selzner replied, “Uh, well, time would be lost. It would also be illegal.” In effect, the judge’s statement seemed to suggest that when the truth becomes uncomfortable, all one needs to do is outlaw it! Perturbed with the judge’s wretched equivocations, attorney Klaus Goebel protested: I have the impression that this court has something to hide, otherwise it would permit the expert witness to testify. I understand that the prosecuting attorney and the court is under political pressure. Nevertheless, the accused must be given the opportunity to prove his statements. It is intolerable that in a society of law that you can prevent me from questioning the expert witness about his on-site work, and then reject him because he was not asked about this. You are preventing any discussion of a matter of evidence.[19] Replying to these objections, the judge insipidly droned, “Yes, it may very well be that, from your point of view, I am hindering the presentation of the defense case.

Search (no subject) W Widsith 412 to me 1 minute agoDetails And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these [pg 026]miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigour and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.

And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these [pg 026]miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigour and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.

And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigour and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.

On the other hand, McCann characterized Dahmer as a clever master of deception and deceit, who knew very well what he was doing, and who could turn his urges on and off. To this end, he paraded his own set of shrinks to drive home his point, in particular Dr. Park Dietz. Dietz had gained notoriety as a prosecution witness in the trial of John Hinckley Jr., who was acquitted by reason of insanity in 1982 for shooting President Reagan. Dietz had interviewed Dahmer for about eighteen hours over three days and agreed that Dahmer did exhibit some of the symptoms described by Dr. Berlin; however, he concluded that they were not beyond his control.

In October 1960 came the notorious test case of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, in which Penguin Books were prosecuted for publishing in Britain the first unexpurgated edition of D. H. Lawrence’s otherwise unremarkable novel. The Chatterley case was of particular interest to the British not just because of the hitherto illicit passages to which they were now exposed, but also thanks to the inter-class eroticism on which its notoriety rested. Upon being asked by the prosecuting counsel whether this was a novel he would let his ‘wife or maidservant’ ( sic) read, one witness replied that this would not trouble him in the least: but he would never let it into the hands of his gamekeeper.

The church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber dislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness.