Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

20. You would be free to draw that inference if you are a juror, but the "I don't recall" injects

Reply to triron (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 12:42 AM

Nov 2019

enough of a reasonable doubt for most people to make it very difficult to prove perjury in actual cases. You may not like that and you can argue against it all you want, but I'm just explaining to you how the law, prosecutions and trials actually work and any lawyer who has any experience in these matters will tell you the same thing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why does Chuck Rosenberg always put so much emphasis of proof of whether some act is [View all] triron Nov 2019 OP

Circumstantial Evidence is Evidence But the Jury/Judge decides the weight Stallion Nov 2019 #1

You get 3 or 4 solid inferences out of pieces of circumstantial evidence and triangulate and it coti Nov 2019 #10

I don't get negativity from him at all, that he's pnwest Nov 2019 #2

Umm... Because it is the law! Cartaphelius Nov 2019 #3

I believe his point is that it's difficult to prove someone committed perjury if not to s StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #4

I agree it's 'possible' but would a reasonable person believe them if cuircumstantial evidence triron Nov 2019 #7

You're talking about two different things StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #13

No I am talking about just that. If circumstantial evidence shows most likely that the triron Nov 2019 #16

....but is it BEYOND a reasonable doubt? Stallion Nov 2019 #18

You would be free to draw that inference if you are a juror, but the "I don't recall" injects StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #20

Right- this is why "I don't recall" is such a popular answer from those on trial nt coti Nov 2019 #12

Exactly StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #14

I listened to the interview. I didn't hear any "shade" at all. TomSlick Nov 2019 #5

I can see how you see it that way but I don't. Maybe Rosenberg didn't want to go further. triron Nov 2019 #8

TomSlick's exactly right StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #15

And that's why we drive our clients crazy. TomSlick Nov 2019 #19

:-) StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #21

We Charge More for Latin Words and Confusing Words Like "Inapposite" Stallion Nov 2019 #22

What really gets expensive is when I quote literature. TomSlick Nov 2019 #24

He was talking about proving perjury and he made perfect sense. greyl Nov 2019 #6

Wow I would like you on my jury if I am ever accused of perjury. triron Nov 2019 #9

I don't get the feeling you're reading for comprehension, greyl Nov 2019 #11

ohhh. burn! (nt) stopdiggin Nov 2019 #26

He's explaining the law as he knows it. NCLefty Nov 2019 #17

Plenty of people around here feel perfectly comfortable arguing the law with lawyers StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #23

Gravitas. Because he is a very serious man, and these are very very serious times. ... Hekate Nov 2019 #25