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
In reply to the discussion: Can a DU legal expert explain to me... [View all]Fiendish Thingy
(22,856 posts)28. That's not true for all 62 cases.
Many were dismissed for lack of evidence, since Rudy and Sidney were smart enough not to present the looney CTs that they were promoting in public, in court, as that could subject them to sanctions.
So, no evidence, just claims of irregularities
cases dismissed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No. You can't just instruct the jury as to what a reasonable person would have believed.
Ms. Toad
Jul 2023
#9
The mens rea of the crime is ALWAYS subjective - what the accused actually knew.
Ms. Toad
Jul 2023
#18
He lies that is evident. It will be all the evidence of is his lies that will make it easy to prove
boston bean
Jul 2023
#47
Go ahead and up willful ignorance or blindness too; there are other terms for it.
Hortensis
Jul 2023
#33