cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1998-12-03 - RE: I Got Mine

Header Data

From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
To: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Message Hash: 02362f2833112773c2d7b78b85997df9bfe812979d1db7beb1062152c5642164
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02.9812022247030.4891-100000@ideath.parrhesia.com>
Reply To: <000201be1e81$1d19d800$7d8195cf@blanc>
UTC Datetime: 1998-12-03 07:14:07 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:14:07 +0800

Raw message

From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:14:07 +0800
To: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Subject: RE: I Got Mine
In-Reply-To: <000201be1e81$1d19d800$7d8195cf@blanc>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02.9812022247030.4891-100000@ideath.parrhesia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Blanc wrote:

> (On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I made
> regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a court
> appearance)

My evidence books are packed in a moving box (sigh) at the moment, so
please take this with a grain of salt, but the only reason I see to ask
you to write anything down is to use it against you, either as a witness
or as a defendant. Your written statement is considered hearsay and
wouldn't be admissible at Toto's trial .. unless the prosecution was using
it to impeach you in the event that you testified, in which case it would
be admissible solely for the purpose of making you look like a liar. (If
the statement also tends to cast Toto in a poor light, the prosecution
probably won't lose any sleep over the spillover effects on the jury.)

If either side in a trial (especially a criminal trial) thinks you've got
something useful to say, they're going to need to put you on the witness
stand in front of the jury/judge and let you make your statements, and be
cross-examined, in person. Statements made out of court won't be
admissible to prove the truth of the matter they're discussing, unless the
situation happens to fit into one of a series of narrow exceptions.

One of the biggest exceptions is called "statements made by the opposing
party", aka "statements by the defendant" in a criminal trial. Another is
to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, where the prior
statement is inconsistent with their testimony at trial.

It smells like a setup to me.

--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles@netbox.com

Thread