Bill Cosby

[jp1]

Most rape cases also hinge on testimony since the determinative factor in most cases is consent. Short of an audio recording of the victim consenting to the act, it is hard to imagine what sort of physical evidence a defendant or prosecutor could produce to show consent, and as with the jaywalking case, juries must often determine the issue of consent based on the witnesses' testimony.

This, I find interesting. My mind usually immediately jumps to "signs of struggle" and that leaves out the other forms of rape which do not have any possible form of hard evidence. I suppose in that case there is no choice but to work with the testimony. It's a very scary thought indeed, how easily you could be vindictively persecuted. On the other hand it is just as scary to think of a world where there was no consequence for drugging and raping someone. I have to concur that the issue becomes much more complicated. I wouldn't want to sit in the jury in such a case.

[Exhuminator]

but the latter two categories are, nonetheless, "evidence" capable of proving a person committed a crime.

Can you cite the sections of the US law code that sanctions this sort of circumstantial hearsay as admissable evidence?

[MrPopo]

but the latter two categories are, nonetheless, "evidence" capable of proving a person committed a crime.

Can you cite the sections of the US law code that sanctions this sort of circumstantial hearsay as admissable evidence?

Circumstantial is admissible, hearsay is not, if I remember my intro to law class correctly. But a halfway decent jury would not convict on circumstantial alone.

[jp1]

So, where are you at on this Dave? A lot of discussion since you weighed in last. Impressions?

[dsheinem]

So, where are you at on this Dave? A lot of discussion since you weighed in last. Impressions?

I'm still where I was. There's no evidence, testimony, etc., that I feel I can trust from either Cosby or the accusers. I'm content to just not know and to not really have much of an opinion on the matter since it is impossible to have an informed one.

I was trying to figure out if maybe I was missing some piece of something that was making everyone else I know SO SURE he must be a rapist (and treating him as such). Turns out those people are just basing that view on a hunch at best or some kind of bizarre flawed reasoning at worst...and since I am not willing to acquit or condemn Cobsy on a hunch or through leaps in reasoning, I will wait and see if anything that's actually useful for passing judgement one way or another comes from all this.

[prfsnl_gmr]

but the latter two categories are, nonetheless, "evidence" capable of proving a person committed a crime.

Can you cite the sections of the US law code that sanctions this sort of circumstantial hearsay as admissable evidence?

The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admission of evidence in federal court, and various state rules of evidence govern the admission of evidence in state courts. (State rules of evidence are generally based on the federal rules, however; so, I will simply discuss those below.)

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, "evidence" is anything that "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence," and it is "relevant" if the fact it makes more or less probable "is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless its admission is expicitly barred by the Federal Rules of Evidence of other law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 402.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not define "circumstantial" evidence, but the concept is well-recognized in the law. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact, and most physical evidence is, in fact, circumstantial evidence. (For example, if you saw people breaking up a fight between a man with a bloody lip and another man with an injured hand, you would infer from those circumstances that the man with the injured hand hit the man with the bloody lip. There are other explanations for those circumstances, however, and unless a witness testified that the man with the injured hand hit the man with the bloody lip, you would not have any direct evidence of the attack.)

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the "truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Fed. R. Civ. P. 801. "Hearsay" is generally not admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 802. Determining whether a statement is "hearsay" can be difficult, but the concept can be explained by an example: If a witness testified, "I didn't see the fight, but John told me that he saw Bill hit Jim," that statement would be admissible to show: (1) that the witness did not see the fight; (2) that the witness spoke with John; and (3) the substance of John's conversation with the witness. It would not, however, be admissible to show that Bill hit Jim. The reason for this is that John is not testifying, and the parties cannot "confront" his testimony. (That is, they cannot ask John, who actually witnessed the incident, questions about what he saw.) Unlike some judicial systems, our system of laws generally allows parties to "confront" witnesses; so, it does not allow the admission of hearsay evidence.

Accordingly, the accusations against Bill Cosby are mostly direct, first-hand evidence of a crime. While some of the accusations are based on circumstantial evidence (i.e., "I took a drink from Mr. Cosby. I passed out a few moments later. I woke up the next morning completely undressed."), several of the accusations against him are direct evidence. None of them are hearsay (i.e., "Jane told me that Bill Cosby Cosby drugged my drink before having sex with me.").

You can afford the statements whatever weight you think they deserve. (In other words, you are free to believe or disbelieve the accusations.) There is no doubt, however, that if Mr. Cosby were tried for each of the alleged crimes, they would be admissible to prove his guilt. (That is, a statement by the person accusing Bill Cosby of rape would be admissible to prove he raped that person. Accusations by other people, for a variety of reasons, probably would not be admissible.)

[MrPopo]

Do you/did you use your lawyer knowledge to pick up chicks at the bar?

[prfsnl_gmr]

Do you/did you use your lawyer knowledge to pick up chicks at the bar?

No, I met my wife during my first months of law school, and she is not the least bit impressed by this sort of thing.

[Ack]

Do you/did you use your lawyer knowledge to pick up chicks at the bar?

No, I met my wife during my first months of law school, and she is not the least bit impressed by this sort of thing.

Which means he uses it to pick up dudes at the bar.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Do you/did you use your lawyer knowledge to pick up chicks at the bar?

No, I met my wife during my first months of law school, and she is not the least bit impressed by this sort of thing.

Which means he uses it to pick up dudes at the bar.

Moe often than anything, I use it to pick up the tab.