5 ms·

He signed a piece of paper, stipulating someone committed a crime without evidence. In order for officers to arrest you, they need probable cause. Without evi

He signed a piece of paper, stipulating someone committed a crime without evidence. In order for officers to arrest you, they need probable cause. Without evidence, he has no probable cause. He lied under penalty of perjury, saying he had evidence of a crime committed by Adam.

insomniacity 10y ago
Right, that's what the officer did wrong. But MacLeod implies he asked a question during cross that they teach law students not to ask. Presumably because it's kind of a slam-dunk (and he got a slam-dunk response). But I'm curious as to why it's a bad idea to ask.
- gvb 10y ago
  I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He never addresses that. Possibly the principle he refers is "never ask a question that will turn into a dead end (nowhere to go in the examination) if the witness answers in the unfavorable way" (i.e. "no").
  - sumedh 10y ago
    > I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He can ask what evidence does the officer have to show that the author was in the car at that point of time when the photo was taken.
- jhwhite 10y ago
  It's probably that if he answered no there was no way for MacLeod to refute it. So that answer is on record.
- tbrake 10y ago
  I thought it was a slight attempt at humor, e.g. "I ate the one cookie you're never supposed to eat - the last one." but am now curious as well.
- Steeeve 10y ago
  Usually there are a series of elements that together create a fact. If you ask someone if they perjured themselves, they essentially have three choices to avoid a penalty: 1. Lie 2. Rationalize (it wasn't perjury becuase x, y, z) (and which you are not prepared to counter-argue). 3. Take the fifth and refuse to answer. Your better off getting there questioning various elements, and then presenting an argument that the signed document was invalid. 1. Did you witness the speeding? 2. Were you able to identify the driver of the car? 3. Please read this document (Plaintiff's exhibit A that states "I witnessed the speeding" and "I identified the driver of the car as x" 4. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document? 5. Are there any other signatures on this document? Then you argue that since important elements in the document were in fact proven to be false, the document cannot be used as evidence that the defendant violated the law. Since there is no other evidence, the violation conviction must be vacated.
  - kazagistar 10y ago
    Could the story have been a simplification or abstraction? As in, he did something like what you said, but condensed it down for conciseness?
- systoll 10y ago
  The question you're not supposed to ask is whatever the last question in your line of questioning would generally be. Or, I suppose: 'is the claim I've been asking you to provide evidence for true?'. In order to get a 'yes', you need to convince the witness of your claim. And most cross-examinations either involve discrediting the witness, or leading them to provide evidence that helps the side they're not on. So they're rather biased. If you ask it, and get a yes from the witness -- you almost certainly got enough from the witness for any judge/jury in the world to agree with you. So it doesn't really help. When you don't get a yes, you're opening the door to the witness providing a different explanation for the things you've established. Which you don't want. * In this case, Macleod had obtained everything he needed from the police officer to demonstrate that he had committed perjury. He could join the dots later, instead of asking the police officer to do so.
betaclass 10y ago
Well there was evidence -- a vehicle that was registered to him was photographed as it was involved in a civil infraction. It wasn't conclusive evidence, much less proof. But it was evidence. And although I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that probable cause is a relatively low standard to meet, much lower than preponderance of the evidence and certainly much lower than beyond reasonable doubt. Ask yourself this -- if a witness saw a car (and noted its license plate) parked in a house's driveway during the time when a burglary was likely to have taken place, and the car was unknown to those who lived at that address, would a judge sign a search warrant on that vehicle and the registrant's address based on probable cause?

insomniacity 10y ago

Right, that's what the officer did wrong. But MacLeod implies he asked a question during cross that they teach law students not to ask. Presumably because it's kind of a slam-dunk (and he got a slam-dunk response). But I'm curious as to why it's a bad idea to ask.

gvb 10y ago
I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He never addresses that. Possibly the principle he refers is "never ask a question that will turn into a dead end (nowhere to go in the examination) if the witness answers in the unfavorable way" (i.e. "no").
- sumedh 10y ago
  > I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He can ask what evidence does the officer have to show that the author was in the car at that point of time when the photo was taken.
jhwhite 10y ago
It's probably that if he answered no there was no way for MacLeod to refute it. So that answer is on record.
tbrake 10y ago
I thought it was a slight attempt at humor, e.g. "I ate the one cookie you're never supposed to eat - the last one." but am now curious as well.
Steeeve 10y ago
Usually there are a series of elements that together create a fact. If you ask someone if they perjured themselves, they essentially have three choices to avoid a penalty: 1. Lie 2. Rationalize (it wasn't perjury becuase x, y, z) (and which you are not prepared to counter-argue). 3. Take the fifth and refuse to answer. Your better off getting there questioning various elements, and then presenting an argument that the signed document was invalid. 1. Did you witness the speeding? 2. Were you able to identify the driver of the car? 3. Please read this document (Plaintiff's exhibit A that states "I witnessed the speeding" and "I identified the driver of the car as x" 4. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document? 5. Are there any other signatures on this document? Then you argue that since important elements in the document were in fact proven to be false, the document cannot be used as evidence that the defendant violated the law. Since there is no other evidence, the violation conviction must be vacated.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  Could the story have been a simplification or abstraction? As in, he did something like what you said, but condensed it down for conciseness?
systoll 10y ago
The question you're not supposed to ask is whatever the last question in your line of questioning would generally be. Or, I suppose: 'is the claim I've been asking you to provide evidence for true?'. In order to get a 'yes', you need to convince the witness of your claim. And most cross-examinations either involve discrediting the witness, or leading them to provide evidence that helps the side they're not on. So they're rather biased. If you ask it, and get a yes from the witness -- you almost certainly got enough from the witness for any judge/jury in the world to agree with you. So it doesn't really help. When you don't get a yes, you're opening the door to the witness providing a different explanation for the things you've established. Which you don't want. * In this case, Macleod had obtained everything he needed from the police officer to demonstrate that he had committed perjury. He could join the dots later, instead of asking the police officer to do so.

betaclass 10y ago

Well there was evidence -- a vehicle that was registered to him was photographed as it was involved in a civil infraction. It wasn't conclusive evidence, much less proof. But it was evidence. And although I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that probable cause is a relatively low standard to meet, much lower than preponderance of the evidence and certainly much lower than beyond reasonable doubt. Ask yourself this -- if a witness saw a car (and noted its license plate) parked in a house's driveway during the time when a burglary was likely to have taken place, and the car was unknown to those who lived at that address, would a judge sign a search warrant on that vehicle and the registrant's address based on probable cause?