Yes: A criminal defendant shouldn't benefit from their wrongdoing
36% (41 votes)
No: The Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses should be upheld
35% (39 votes)
Other: Please explain in comments below
29% (33 votes)
Search
Join the Debate
Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!
User login
Most Viewed
Most Discussed
News: Scripps Howard News Service
Ads by Google
Thoughts
What?
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by AnonymousHow can a murder victim testify?
lol
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by Anonymoushe'd be dead...
yeah
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by AnonymousThat's what I thought. I'm not going to read the story because I'm drunk. But really, when you say murder victim...
Re: I get it now
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by JoelI think the first case *is* admissible as an "excited utterance" that may well be recorded on the 911 tape.
But the second one: That's what the case is about.
Okay, I think I get it now.
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by The Big KlosowskiSo if you are shot, call the 911 operator, and say, "Help, send an Ambulance, Bob just shot me! He looked me in the eye, I recognized him, he said, I'm Bob and I'm here to shoot you, and then he shot me." That is not admissible in court?
I can understand in cases where there is reasonable doubt as to who the culprit might be - such as in a poisoning case. "Bob always had it out for me...he poisoned me!". Because Bob might not be the only one with motive, and taking that as fact would be unfair to Bob.
However, in the first situation, I can't see why it wouldn't be admissible.
Not so funny
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by AnonymousRead the story. It's more complicated -- and less funny -- than you think.
thats hilarious
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by AnonymousObviously, someone thought they would test the intelligence of the typical netizen......
A murder victim is going to have a hard time giving any testimony, since he/she is DEAD.