3 ms·
Apparently, the prosecution was not less annoying. From this[1] Forbes report: > She was annoyed. The defense was annoyed. The press gallery was annoyed. By th
by probably_wrong 12y ago
Apparently, the prosecution was not less annoying. From this[1] Forbes report:
> She was annoyed. The defense was annoyed. The press gallery was annoyed. By the time the lunch break rolled around, Judge Forrest struggled to hold back her irritation. “I’m not suggesting the government doesn’t have a right to object,” she said. But, “I think that there are objections which are objections that you really need to make, and then there are objections where there certainly may be a legal basis for it, but the better part of valor is to stand down.”
> But the rapid-fire objections continued throughout the day.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/02/03/the-silk-road-trial-that-wasnt/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/02/03/the-silk-r...
- davidgerard 12y agoYeeup. OTOH, the prosecution did have a secret weapon on their side: overwhelming evidence. That does help.
- snake_plissken 12y agoRe the Forbes article, I have never completely understood how hearsay rules work. The sworn affidavit from Der-Yeghiayan can be entered as evidence but then certain parts of it can be labeled as hearsay and then the jury the can be told to disregard those specific parts as well as his testimony relating to the contents of the affidavit? How does this not bring in to question the accuracy and integrity of the entire affidavit?
- jnks 12y agoRoughly, "hearsay" means that the person testifying to a fact was not a witness to it themselves or does not have direct knowledge over it. So it's entirely possible that some parts of the affidavit are hearsay while others are acceptable testimony.