This + his smile this morning leads me to believe this verdict was not unplanned for.
10 bucks says another indictment from Durham is coming soon, and some of the facts and testimonies from Sussman's trial will be used in these future cases.
Nope if there is one thing first hand I learned about trials is that none of the witness statements can be used to prosecute anyone in another trial. So this is it.
He is right. That is part of the 6th amendment right to face your accuser. Witnesses have to be cross examined by defense. Sure, the witnesses can be called to the new trial and asked the same questions and hopefully give the same statements. When you thing about how a trial works, it becomes pretty obvious why this is the case. Don’t trust me, though. Do your own research. I am just some stranger on the internet
If, on reexamination, the witness alleged differently in the new trial from what he testified in the other trial, wouldn't the witness be open to a charge of perjury in the previous trial?
Possibly, but a simple “I don’t recall” or “now that I think about it, I was wrong before” will take care of that. Witnesses change testimony all the time with no consequences. I worked IT for law firms for quite a while and this is something that would frustrate lawyers and blow up cases occasionally. Courts recognize that testimony is “to the best of your recollection”
In reality, perjury charges are extremely rare as courts do not want witnesses to be afraid to testify.
That is just not how it works in reality. Perjury charges are rare and convictions are extremely rare. I can’t seem to find it now but I remember a statistic that there were less than 100 cases in the entire US per year with only a dozen or so convictions and most of those had the sentence commuted. https://daily.jstor.org/why-is-perjury-so-rarely-prosecuted/
Does anyone know the kind of language used on the jury forms here? This could be a resulting decision due to poor verbage or semantics, and have nothing to do with whether it was proven in court that Sussman lied. Stupid, right? But I dunno -- seems plausible.
Statement from Durham.
This + his smile this morning leads me to believe this verdict was not unplanned for.
10 bucks says another indictment from Durham is coming soon, and some of the facts and testimonies from Sussman's trial will be used in these future cases.
Better be
Nope if there is one thing first hand I learned about trials is that none of the witness statements can be used to prosecute anyone in another trial. So this is it.
I hope you are wrong.
He is right. That is part of the 6th amendment right to face your accuser. Witnesses have to be cross examined by defense. Sure, the witnesses can be called to the new trial and asked the same questions and hopefully give the same statements. When you thing about how a trial works, it becomes pretty obvious why this is the case. Don’t trust me, though. Do your own research. I am just some stranger on the internet
If, on reexamination, the witness alleged differently in the new trial from what he testified in the other trial, wouldn't the witness be open to a charge of perjury in the previous trial?
Possibly, but a simple “I don’t recall” or “now that I think about it, I was wrong before” will take care of that. Witnesses change testimony all the time with no consequences. I worked IT for law firms for quite a while and this is something that would frustrate lawyers and blow up cases occasionally. Courts recognize that testimony is “to the best of your recollection” In reality, perjury charges are extremely rare as courts do not want witnesses to be afraid to testify.
That is just not how it works in reality. Perjury charges are rare and convictions are extremely rare. I can’t seem to find it now but I remember a statistic that there were less than 100 cases in the entire US per year with only a dozen or so convictions and most of those had the sentence commuted.
https://daily.jstor.org/why-is-perjury-so-rarely-prosecuted/
Next up is Danchenko and that trial is in Virginia, not DC
What other cases are there?
Danchenko on October 11, 2022.
Durham got any book deals on the horizon?
Does anyone know the kind of language used on the jury forms here? This could be a resulting decision due to poor verbage or semantics, and have nothing to do with whether it was proven in court that Sussman lied. Stupid, right? But I dunno -- seems plausible.
This is the way
Some fishing is done from a public bridge. Durham just caught some tasty bait fish.
Look weak when you are strong.