4 ms·
It does that is why you have to hide it by parallel construction.
by stonemetal 13y ago
It does that is why you have to hide it by parallel construction.
- mtgx 13y agoSo it's illegal.
- stonemetal 13y agoI would say it clearly violates the 6th amendment, but I am an uneducated bumpkin when it comes to legal matters. to be confronted with the witnesses against him; Witnesses in this passage supposedly applies to evidence, not just people witnesses. Therefore it should violate that part.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Witnesses in this passage supposedly applies to evidence, not just people witnesses. Witnesses are the people that are the source of evidence. Testimony is one form of evidence, but physical evidence still comes from people.
- zachrose 13y agoWould anybody not expect the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down parallel construction, given a clean enough case?
- jacoblyles 13y agoJaded libertarian here - I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution with the help of a Ouija board, a fifth of whisky, an intern dressed as lady liberty, cryptic signs hidden in the music of Katy Perry, and Alito's pair of lucky dice.
- apalmer 13y agowell any given set of supreme court judges may come to any particular conclusion, and i am not a lawyer so take it for what its worth: parallel construction as concept probably there could be some debate over the specific implementation where neither defense, prosecution or judge is made aware of the actual facts of the case and the enforcement officials actually lie in sworn testimony? not sure why this would even have to go to the supreme court its plain simple and unambiguous perjury.
- dllthomas 13y agoIANAL, but that is my interpretation, yes.