Pregnant teens belong in jail

[DinoDoc]

If she doesn't want to press charges and she's being forced to testify, it would seem that she believes that her initial report to the police was false.

[KrazyHorse]

What sort of legal reasoning is that?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I also find it amusing that Kid thinks New Mexico law applies in Ontario...

What's even better is the next line in his quoted text:

The general rule is that hearsay is not admissible as evidence.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If she doesn't want to press charges and she's being forced to testify, it would seem that she believes that her initial report to the police was false.

Fortunately for the rest of the world, the law doesn't work the way you think it does

[Stuie]

But she has since said she hopes he is acquitted so they can build a life together.

That's just sad. The child should go right into protective custody when it's born; if he's beating her up he's sure to smack the kid(s) around as well.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What sort of legal reasoning is that?

The kind that believes that it is dangerous to put an unwilling witness on the stand where you don't really know nor will you be able to control what they will say.

[KrazyHorse]

Dino, you're having serious troubles with nonsequiturs here.

[KrazyHorse]

Let's go over the problems with this:

If she doesn't want to press charges and she's being forced to testify, it would seem that she believes that her initial report to the police was false.

a) I'm not certain there was an "initial report to the police". So far I haven't read anything which indicates the existence of such a report.

b) Even granting the existence of such a report: just because she doesn't want him prosecuted doesn't mean that she believes she was lying.

Understand?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


What's even better is the next line in his quoted text:

The general rule is that hearsay is not admissible as evidence.

You don't know what "general" means, do you?

[DinoDoc]

she believes she was lying.

The issue isn't what an unwilling complaining witness believes, its what they'll say on the stand to get the abuser aquited. I honestly don't see how the Crown is goingto get a conviction in this case.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You don't know what "general" means, do you?

It means 'most of the time'. It doesn't change the fact that you used a link that specifically said that 'in general, this is not admissible' to imply something was admissable

[KrazyHorse]

Dino, you don't appear to be following the discussion very well. I've already stated that the Crown is not going to have an easy time of it here. My point is that your statements about false reports have no basis in what we've read so far.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I find it very amusing that you quoted this. My mother prosecutes domestic abuse cases in New Mexico. She regularly has cases where the victim refuses to testify, and hates every one of them - often it is simple to show a rational person that abuse occurred, but without the testimony of the victim it is very difficult to obtain a conviction (unless the Cops or someone else watched it happen, which happens very rarely).

The excited utterance hearsay exception, also known as the "spontaneous declaration" exception and formalized by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) and the rules of evidence in the majority of the states,19 establishes that a statement is "not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness," when the "statement relat[es] to a startling event or condition [and is] made while the declarant [is] under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition."20 Thus, assuming that an act of domestic violence qualifies as a startling event, a victim's statement relating to the abuse made while the victim was under the stress or excitement caused by the abuse would properly be admitted into evidence under the excited utterance hearsay exception even if the victim does not testify in court.

In fact, the use of excited utterances has enabled prosecutors to take the decision whether to prosecute an alleged abuser out of the victim's hands entirely. As one prosecutor explained:
The victim no longer has control over the decision to prosecute the case. The police have been instructed to take statements from both the husband and the wife at the time of the incident. As a result, usually at that time there are sufficient excited utterances by both parties to prove a case without the cooperation of either individual.21

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/955003-1.html

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My point is that your statements about false reports have no basis in what we've read so far.

False report was a misstatement on my part. I was responding to Imran's posty that she hadn't recanted.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


It means 'most of the time'. It doesn't change the fact that you used a link that specifically said that 'in general, this is not admissible' to imply something was admissable

Read the damn thing. It says that there is a domestic violence exception.