Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
What else we're reading
A swimsuit issue in Chicago, and more.
Lynn Harris [2007-07-11]
The letters thread is now closed.

  • Testimony

    How can a court possibly require someone to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, while simultaneously requiring them not to use basic relevant terminology?

    -- Pyrian
    [Read Pyrian's other letters]
    Wednesday, July 11, 2007 01:09 PM

  • @Pyrian

    It is a fine line. Let's check out some of the possible questions/testimony:

    To the woman: "Did he rape you?"

    To the man: "Did you rape her?"

    These questions ask for opinions regarding a question of fact and the fact is central to the case.

    Objection (before the answer)- conclussory, the jury makes decisions of fact and typically only experts are considered competent to give an opinion.

    To the man "Did you rape her at your place"

    Objections: conclussory and indefinite. Rape is a question of fact, as discussed above. Indefinite because there are two questions hidden in there. "Rape?" and "Your place?"

    So, the judge is going to require the jury to determine the legal elements of rape such as sexual contact, consent, ability to consent, actual knowledge of disability, constructive knowledge of disability, ... The rape question is then determined by applying the legal elements.

    So, can a rape case be decided this way? Certainly. Does the judges decision bar some of the more emotionally charged testimony/questions? absolutely. Does it weaken the prosecution's case? Maybe. The elements would have to be proven anyway.

    Did the judge cross the line? I think so. Everything I've mentioned could be handled by a dilligent defense attny objecting to questions and answers. What is lost is that the prosecution can not make the complete accusation, nor the defense rebut it, during the opening and closing arguments. The charge should be mentionable during those two phases of the trial.

    -- Tyler_Mason
    [Read Tyler_Mason's other letters]
    Wednesday, July 11, 2007 01:43 PM

  • It's all about the bikini

    So when Gwen Ifill has Condi Rice over to her house for dinner (which she does), and then lobs her some softballs when interviewing her (which she also does), how come Gwen gets to keep her job?

    Probably because she wasn't in a bikini, I'd guess. Nobody cares about corruption and integrity unless there's sex involved.

    -- malcalypse
    [Read malcalypse's other letters]
    Wednesday, July 11, 2007 01:43 PM

  • What else I'M reading

    Headline, Salon's main page: "Lady Bird Johnson dead at 94."

    Hmmm...Beverly Sills...Liz Claiborne...now one of the classiest (and environmentally-conscious-before-it-was-cool) First Ladies ever...wonder if Salon will pick up on the "It Comes In Threes" angle to do some well-deserved and long-overdue salutes to these three great American heroines?

    --Anonymous
    Wednesday, July 11, 2007 03:30 PM

  • Channel 5 fires Amy Jacobson....

    but keeps Marion Brooks who had a long term affair with the mayor of Atlanta (while she was a news anchor there!) and whose trysts with the mayor were mostly likely paid for by the cash bribes given in exchange for political favors??

    Really?????

    -- mollypo
    [Read mollypo's other letters]
    Thursday, July 12, 2007 07:20 AM

  • Anonymous 3:30

    Absolutely right. The passing of Lady Bird Johnson is a sad day for every American and everyone in this country who cares about wildlife conservation.

    She took a stand for environmentalism when the concept was still an unknown in the US.

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/12/ap3906503.html

    Some of her legacy is highlighted here:

    http://www.wildflower.org/organizations/affiliates.php

    -- Parson Jim
    [Read Parson Jim's other letters]
    Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:01 AM

Letters Help