Kreepy Kavanaugh

[Oblimo]

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time, but here is an appellate decision reversing a trial where there was only one witness, not because there was no “corroboration”, but because the judge’s instructions were insufficient.

Since I can’t trust you to actual look at links yourself, I’ll include the entire decision.

PEOPLE V GARDNER
59 A.D.2d 913 (1977)
Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered.

We find that the Trial Judge's refusal to instruct the jury with respect to the evaluation of the identification evidence, as requested by defense counsel, is reversible error. After a review of the trial minutes, it is clear that the instant case concerned itself primarily with the issue of identification. The sole identification witness produced by the People was Officer Moore, the complainant. The defendant, who did not testify on his own behalf, relied upon an alibi defense. At approximately 11:30 P.M. on April 2, 1975, the defendant was allegedly riding as a passenger in a vehicle that had been stopped by the police. Officer Moore testified that he observed the defendant, seated on the passenger side of the vehicle, for approximately 10 to 15 seconds. His observation of that person consisted primarily of the back of his head and a profile view. The individual then alighted from the vehicle, as requested. Thereupon, Officer Moore obtained an additional 30- to 40-second viewing of the culprit before he shoved the officer and took flight. Officer Moore followed in pursuit, along the dark streets, engaging in an exchange of gunfire with that person. The witness' pretrial identification of the defendant was based largely upon voice recognition and the observation of the defendant in a cap similar to that worn by the assailant on the night of the crime. We believe that such facts required judicial guidance with regard to the jury's appraisal of the identification testimony, particularly where requested by defense counsel. The trial court should have instructed the jury to consider and balance, inter alia, such factors as the complaining witness' opportunity for observation, the duration and distance of the viewing, the lighting and weather conditions, the witness' ability to describe the assailant's physical features and apparel, and any other relevant factors. While the request of defense counsel for appropriate instructions to the jury on the issue of identification was not as precise as it might have been, we consider it sufficient to have elicited an instruction by the court on the issue of identification (see People v Jackson, 14 N.Y.2d 5). The test of the sufficiency of the court's instructions to the jury is whether the jury, after hearing the entire charge, would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at its decision (see People v Russell, 266 N.Y. 147, 153). A careful analysis of the charge to the jury in the instant case indicates the noticeable absence of any instructions whatsoever that would have assisted the jury in its evaluation of the identification evidence. If this were a case where the guilt of the defendant was proven overwhelmingly, we might have found that this error did not require reversal of the judgment of conviction. However, in the instant case, there was a very close question on the issue of the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. Under all of the circumstances herein, and in the interest of justice, a new trial is required. The record discloses certain injudicious comments made by the Trial Judge which merit comment. While it is true that these remarks were made out of the presence of the jury, they were highly improper and the Trial Judge should have refrained from making them. The absence of the jury does not afford the Judge license to air his personal feelings on the case or to comment as to the character of the defendant.

There. A cop gets shoved. The only witness is the cop. The only evidence is the cop’s testimony. There is no magical corroboration. Of course, with a full instruction like that, and an unbiased judge, the case may tank, and I don’t know if the prosecution dropped the charges.

Take this case and shove it up your ass, Que.

 

[Que]

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time, but here is an appellate decision reversing a trial where there was only one witness, not because there was no “corroboration”, but because the judge’s instructions were insufficient.

Since I can’t trust you to actual look at links yourself, I’ll include the entire decision.



There. A cop gets shoved. The only witness is the cop. The only evidence is the cop’s testimony. There is no magical corroboration. Of course, with a full instruction like that, and an unbiased judge, the case may tank, and I don’t know if the prosecution dropped the charges.

Take this case and shove it up your ass, Que.

Oh, really?

The cop did not establish, just for example, that he was on shift in a specific area at a specific time? That the person he testified against was there by his contemporaneous field notes taken at the time? Perhaps the accused signature on a notice to appear? No radio call log? No statement against interest made by the defendant that showed the defendant was there?

He just walked himself into the prosecutor's office gave a verbal statement left and the guy was convicted based on that verbal statement? Is that what you're telling me?

 

[BBX50]

“BELIEVE THE WOMAN:” America always knew woman’s Emmett Till story was a lie.\


Women almost ALWAYS lie about stuff like this

ALWAYS HAVE

 

[BBX50]

Maybe real Americans see thru this BS

GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest In 7 Years. “Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September’s 36%. It is the party’s most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections.”


MAYBE

 

[IG_88]

“BELIEVE THE WOMAN:” America always knew woman’s Emmett Till story was a lie.\


Women almost ALWAYS lie about stuff like this

ALWAYS HAVE

We don't agree on much but we do agree that women are lying cheating whores. I knew you weren't completely stupid.

 

[Oblimo]

Oh, really?

The cop did not establish, just for example, that he was on shift in a specific area at a specific time? That the person he testified against was there by his contemporaneous field notes taken at the time? Perhaps the accused signature on a notice to appear? No radio call log? No statement against interest made by the defendant that showed the defendant was there?

He just walked himself into the prosecutor's office gave a verbal statement left and the guy was convicted based on that verbal statement? Is that what you're telling me?

“Sole identification witness.” Do you know what that means?

(And “accused signature on a notice to appear”? How would a court summons be probative in the fact-pattern of this case?)

 

[Rightguide]

Because, counselor, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be extremely unreliable, even when witnesses have no axe to grind and are trying to recall details accurately.

A large number of conviction reversals are those where eyewitnesses placed the wrong person at the scene. Even in those cases, some sort of corroboration was done. You can't just haul a witness into court and say this guy saw that guy rob the bank you have to be able to show that the witness was even in the bank. It's called laying a foundation for testimony, counselor.

As an example: even though Eric Holder who was Obama's attorney general desperately wanted to show that the original narratives about hands up don't shoot were accurate they found that not only could they not corroborate the witness statements they were able to show that thewiitnesses were not on scene in time and could not possibly have witnessed what they actually believed they had witnessed. I would not be a bit surprised if several of those "witnesses" could have passed the polygraph because I'm sure that they believed what they thought they saw. A crowd of people worked into a frenzy can easily believe that they saw things that they actually did not.

And people who are taught "alleged fact" through repetitive instruction will believe and swear to the fallacies they might contain as well. Ferguson taught us that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Oh my God.

I am saying you don’t need to corroborate testimony.

I gave you proof you don’t need to corrobarate testimony.

And you think putting the word “corrobarated” in a bigger font makes you right, somehow?

When Queerbait panics, it's all big fonts 'n bolded texts.

He still hasn't figured out that this is a confirmation hearing, not a criminal trial. There is no "standard of evidence". Even if there was damning evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" against Rapey McRaperson, at least 49 Senators would vote for his confirmation anyway. The need for a fifth Roe vote supercedes any personal disgust. A fifth vote to overturn Roe would go a long way towards extending the dwindling white patriarchy and herald a return to "barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen".

 

[cowslinger64]

And people who are taught "alleged fact" through repetitive instruction will believe and swear to the fallacies they might contain as well. Ferguson taught us that.

Thanks for the input, notvette..

 

[phrodeau]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ok-georgetown-sexual-misconduct-a8553526.html

High-school Brett sounds like quite the incel.

The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.

Two of Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.

This month, Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined 64 other women who, saying they knew Kavanaugh during their high school years, signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is weighing Kavanaugh’s nomination. The letter stated that “he has behaved honourably and treated women with respect”.

When Dolphin signed the Sept. 14 letter, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references on the pages of Kavanaugh and his football teammates.

“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

 

[Que]

“Sole identification witness.” Do you know what that means?

(And “accused signature on a notice to appear”? How would a court summons be probative in the fact-pattern of this case?)

Yes I do, and as I have repeatedly explained to you, absent some sort of corroboration that places said witness in a position to BE a witness you have less than nothing.

You keep leaving that out.

No one has said anything at all about needing additional witnesses or how robust the corroboration must be, but no corroboration at all is a non-starter.

You can repeat your contention that one only needs one witness for IDENTIFICATION of a perpetrator of a crime a thousand times (which no one has disputed) and it will not change the fact that you must have some basis, rooted in evidence that that witness was in a place and time to actually be a witness.

If he SIGNED the ticket, it CORROBORATES the cop's testimony that the accused was at the scene and was the actual person that the cop is giving testimony about.

Could you be any more dense?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Queerbait with another "but but he said she said!" misdirection.

Mark Judge was in the room when Rapey McRaperson tried to fuck Doctor Ford....SHE mentioned this. Judge would "prefer" not to testify under oath. You'd think he would, seeing as this event took place during the best year of his life (he wrote a self-published book about the hilarious hijinks of his senior year at Georgetown Prep entitled "God and Man at Georgetown Prep").

Next up, Queerbait explains how it's technically not sexual assault if she was dressed "slutty". Ford was wearing a one-piece bathing suit to a pool party. Does this rise to the level of "sluttiness"? Bitch was begging for dick, right Que?

 

[Oblimo]

Yes I do, and as I have repeatedly explained to you, absent some sort of corroboration that places said witness in a position to BE a witness you have less than nothing.

You keep leaving that out.

How do you interpret me saying, “no, you don’t need corroborating evidence for eyewitness testimony” as “leaving it out?”

I am not leaving it out. I am saying you are wrong, and providing proof, too.

No one has said anything at all about needing additional witnesses or how robust the corroboration must be, but no corroboration at all is a non-starter.

Hold up. What do you think “corrobarting evidence” means in the context of trial evidence? I have a growing suspicion you are using an inappropriate definition

You can repeat your contention that one only needs one witness for IDENTIFICATION of a perpetrator of a crime a thousand times (which no one has disputed) and it will not change the fact that you must have some basis, rooted in evidence that that witness was in a place and time to actually be a witness.

Yes, and that evidence can be provided by the witness himself. “I saw X and Y on the corner of P & Q street around 5:00 PM. I remember the time because I checked my watch. That street is a regular part of my beat [or similar].”

If he SIGNED the ticket, it CORROBORATES the cop's testimony that the accused was at the scene and was the actual person that the cop is giving testimony about.

What ticket? In the case above, the defendant fled, and was arrested later.

Could you be any more dense?

Oh yes, I could be as dense as you are being.

The more evidence you have, the better. But there is nothing that requires eyewitness testimony to be corroborated. You need a foundation, just like all evidence, and that can be provided by the witness himself. A judge will not dismiss a case just because the only evidence is testimony of a single witness.

Edit: please, please, please, do research on the “One Witness Rule” before responding. Or at least read the jury instructions document I linked you to, and I recommend you read the cases it cites, too. You’ll find it enlightening.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Apparently Dems. approached Ramirez, after they found some papertrail:




So it looks like something Did happen at a party.
For me, the issue becomes: do we believe Ramirez's version of events (attempted assault), or did she distort facts? Then and/or now.
I go with the latter.

And like Ramirez, understanding what is at stake, most of these Yalies, reconstructed their memory in order to make that 'person' be Kavanaugh in their memory. Remember which team most Yale graduates play for...



This is career enhancement for them.

Rowen has turned himself into a hearsay gossip columnist, and what a shame, for a while there, he was almost practicing "journalism."

 

[SpeareChucker]

George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are living it right now.

Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its “resistance” is undermining an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the proper president would be elected — the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology. Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy- or girlfriend, or co-workers.

But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

In Orwell’s world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology — the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one’s life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality — warps everything from the use of language to private life.

Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-nomination-battle-like-orwells-1984/

 

[Rightguide]

Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-nomination-battle-like-orwells-1984/

What we see happening today is the totalitarianism of "campus life" moving into the public square to claim normalcy.

 

[RobDownSouth]

And like Ramirez, understanding what is at stake, most of these Yalies, reconstructed their memory in order to make that 'person' be Kavanaugh in their memory. Remember which team most Yale graduates play for...



This is career enhancement for them.

Rowen has turned himself into a hearsay gossip columnist, and what a shame, for a while there, he was almost practicing "journalism."

Sexual assault is a "team sport" now?

Seriously, if you ever wonder why some women never report being sexually assaulted, you have only to look at the comments of the rape enablers here (NotAJ, NotVetteman and Queerbait)

 

[Adre]

Republican cowards on Judiciary hire a woman to question the witnesses. The white male thing wasn’t looking so good.

 

[Rightguide]

Sexual assault is a "team sport" now?

Seriously, if you ever wonder why some women never report being sexually assaulted, you have only to look at the comments of the rape enablers here (NotAJ, NotVetteman and Queerbait)

Yes, actual evidence is such an oppressive requirement.

 

[Rightguide]

Republican cowards on Judiciary hire a woman to question the witnesses. The white male thing wasn’t looking so good.

It was the left itself who screamed at the possibility of bring cross examined by a white male.

 

[Adre]

And like Ramirez, understanding what is at stake, most of these Yalies, reconstructed their memory in order to make that 'person' be Kavanaugh in their memory. Remember which team most Yale graduates play for...

You mean the highly educated successful team of accomplished people? That team?

 

[Que]

You mean the highly educated successful team of accomplished people? That team?

Big.fan of George W, are you?

 

[Adre]

It was the left itself who screamed at the possibility of bring cross examined by a white male.

No, the left was very, very happy to have a dozen white men doing the cross.

 

[Oblimo]

Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-nomination-battle-like-orwells-1984/

1984 was about a dystopian government.

The entities behaving the most like big brother today are privately held corporations like Google, Apple, Comcast, and FaceBook.

Now, it used to be that the CIA, FBI and NSA were the most invasive intel gathering entities in the world. Remember DARPA’S TIA project? That was all about collecting data from the populace involuntarily.

That hasn’t been true since companies like Google tricked people into volunteering to provide them with more data the NSA could ever collect surreptitiously.

Although, the governments are now buying that data from private companies. But it is still very different than Oceania.

 

[Adre]

Big.fan of George W, are you?

Well, he became a President.