against the detainees at guantanimo?
It seems that the US government wants to make certain that these people are found guilty whether they are or not and is making a system that is impossible to find otherwise
2007-01-18 17:36:08 · 5 answers · asked by Nemesis 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It's appalling. It also allows evidence obtained through torture (or as they so nicely put it, "coercive techniques") as long as it was obtained in 2005.
2007-01-18 17:42:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing new there --- A lawyer who can't get evidence in, including most hearsay evidence, is not a good lawyer. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that they should just throw the whole thing out. Let the jury decide what's good evidence and what's not.
2007-01-19 02:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by CrazyGypsy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes you did. But it also works both ways. It also allows the detainee to present hearsay evidence. The reasoning for this is because there are no crime scenes for real evidence.
2007-01-19 01:41:57 · answer #3 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not but hearsay evidence has always been allowed in court but some hearsay is excluded under certain conditions. If you shoot Joe Smith, and then tell me that "I just shot Joe Smith", I would be allowed to go to court and state that you told me you shot Joe Smith. The hearsay that would be exclude is if I heard that information from a third party.
2007-01-19 01:50:09 · answer #4 · answered by Mike B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh thats just hearsay.
2007-01-19 01:40:26 · answer #5 · answered by Matty G 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋