Bucking a trend in other jurisdictions, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court today decided that the use of experts who pontificate that a Defendant's confession was falsely induced by police, is inadmissible. Speaking for the Court, Jutice Seamus McCaffrey called it an "impermissible invasion of the jury’s role as the exclusive arbiter of credibility." It's a 4-2 decision with two concurring opinions, along with a dissent.
In this case, a Defendant with a low IQ and mental health issues, confessed to a bar shooting after six hours of police interrogation.
In his dissent, Justice Saylor said he would "trust our trial judges to make fair and just decisions on admissibility of expert evidence, knowing full well that there will be inconsistencies which will need to be addressed by the appellate courts in the developing decisional law."
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Thursday, May 29, 2014
14 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
An insiders club just got more insider.
ReplyDeleteThis comment of course makes no sense
ReplyDeleteHow many hours without COUNCIL? If something has to stick and it was serious enough a crime, I would think someone from the DA's office would have made sure this suspect had council early if they are notified after an arrest,-- For any reason that would prohibit the defendants rights from being violated in later proceedings.The U.S.Constitution is fluid to some degree but competency issues of a defendant are almost always held on the back end.
ReplyDeleteSeamus. A legal scholar dispensing justice under section 200 of the Vet. What a cosmic joke. And he actually believes he belongs on the court.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8;04 OH YA you are so smart! The Court is the PEOPLE not the LAWYERS!Old PETER say's sign your name. And I could take you on legally ---in time.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8;04 I want you to hit me with your digestion of a legal issue and let me respond to it. Where are you . Sign your name and ask me a question that you may even have ,like Workmen's Compensation for example; 66 and 2/3erd % of a 52 week average with OT up to $782 .00 a week . But what if they have' heart and lung' ?Now what -Go ahead make my day?
ReplyDeleteWorker's Compensation a special issue ,I mis printed it as workman's compensation. The term has been changed for many years as gender neutral .
ReplyDeleteThe scales are more and more slanted to the police state. As Americans are civil rights are becoming more and more a burden to those in power. The courts are just another part of the growing police state.
ReplyDeleteWake up people.
police state my ass. This country has become one big con from top to bottom. Excuses,excuses,excuses. Twinkie defense doesnt work, try abused as a child, or poverty or make up a new one. they say over exposure to flatulance causes brain and lung damage like second hand smoke. One big con heaven.
ReplyDeletepolice state my ass. This country has become one big con from top to bottom. Excuses,excuses,excuses. Twinkie defense doesnt work, try abused as a child, or poverty or make up a new one. they say over exposure to flatulance causes brain and lung damage like second hand smoke. So much for growing up in a food desert.
ReplyDeleteThough often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the United States. Used by the likes of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) [and the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers], we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. Particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the United States, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the Economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be.
ReplyDeleteYour comment has nothing to do with this thread. Anonymous speech existed in the colonial era not to enable trolls to make ad hominems, but to discuss important issues. Many of the speakers feared the King's wrath.
ReplyDeletePeople like who hide behind anonymity to make personal attacks, are cowards. And it is dishonest to compare the trolling you do to Tom Paine. But that is what I expect from people like you - dishonesty and cowardice.
Boo.
Frankly speaking your tedious reiteration of a hackneyed phrase misses the point. No one in their right mind would allow his or her name to be linked with this trash bin of distortions lies and half truths to float like space junk forever on the internet.
ReplyDeleteSo now we know the real reason for the anonymous personal attacks. It has nothing to do with the expression of ideas, and everything to do with the suppression of them. You don't like what I write so you attack me personally. And you are not standing up to a government, just a voice you find annoying. You spit on the very democracy you pretend to champion. And do so as a coward, crawling out from under a rock.
ReplyDelete