judicial tyranny

[SmarterthanYou]

neither a conservative or liberal rant, but has anyone figured out yet that the government and the courts are in collusion to turn as many citizens as possible in to criminals? Using any and all methods necessary?

for instance, would one think that a judge could exclude a defense expert witness from the courtroom so that they could not hear the prosecutions expert witness, therefore effectively prohibiting the defense witness from being able to counter any information or facts that the prosecutions witness provided to a jury?

 

[Socrtease]

Experts are not generally excluded from the courtroom. Their testimony is based on their expert knowledge and they have a right to listen to the other experts and other testimony so that they can show why it does not, in their expert opinion, comport with the body of knowledge that their testimony relies on. What case did a judge do this in?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Experts are not generally excluded from the courtroom. Their testimony is based on their expert knowledge and they have a right to listen to the other experts and other testimony so that they can show why it does not, in their expert opinion, comport with the body of knowledge that their testimony relies on. What case did a judge do this in?

08-2294 U.S. v. Olofson
May 1, 2009

Evidence
Expert witnesses; sequestration

It was not an abuse of discretion for a court to exclude the defendant's expert from the courtroom while the government's expert was testifying.

"[H]e argued that because Federal Rule of Evidence 703 permits an expert to base his opinion upon facts or data made known to him at trial, Savage 'should be allowed to be present to hear' the government expert's testimony. However, merely because Rule 703 contemplates that an expert may render an opinion based on facts or data made known at trial does not necessarily mean that an expert witness is exempt from a Rule 615 sequestration order. The text of Rule 615 plainly does not provide for such a per se exception; rather, Rule 615(3) confers discretion upon district courts to determine whether a given witness (of whatever stripe) is essential. We agree with the courts of appeals that have addressed the issue that Rule 703 is not an automatic exemption for expert witnesses from Rule 615 sequestration. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1374 (5th Cir. 1981); Morvant v. Constr. Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6th Cir. 1978); see Opus 3, 91 F.3d at 629. Therefore, the mere mention of Rule 703 by Olofson was insufficient to show that a Rule 615(3) exception was warranted."

Affirmed.

08-2294 U.S. v. Olofson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Manion, J.

 

[Socrtease]

Well that is our federal court system. Never allow justice to get in the way of a quick conviction.

 

[uscitizen]

Just because something is legal does not make it just.

 

[Epicurus]

Just because something is legal does not make it just.

Deep.

 

[Kamala Trump]

What if they appoint a Rabbi to the bench and he turns it into a Noahide Court of Law? Eeeeex. Theockracy.

 

[uscitizen]

Deep.

Not really, but not obvious to all as it should be. We are programmed to trust the system and go along....

 

[Minister of Truth]

What if they appoint a Rabbi to the bench and he turns it into a Noahide Court of Law? Eeeeex. Theockracy.

What? No trolls would say it to mock you, so you had to mock yourself instead?

 

[Kamala Trump]

What? No trolls would say it to mock you, so you had to mock yourself instead?

I have to do most of the heavy lifting around here.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

steering this back on track, doesn't anyone see that the 7th circuit just made it so nobody is guaranteed a fair trial by law?

 

[Bonestorm]

steering this back on track, doesn't anyone see that the 7th circuit just made it so nobody is guaranteed a fair trial by law?

Not really. You assume that simply because the defense expert did not hear the prosecution expert's testimony first hand that the defense expert could not rebut the testimony. That's not necessarily the case.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not really. You assume that simply because the defense expert did not hear the prosecution expert's testimony first hand that the defense expert could not rebut the testimony. That's not necessarily the case.

to be sure, that is exactly what it is. the case and trial notes on Olofsons conviction show that the ATF agent didn't even describe what testing methods they used to determine whether his weapon was a machine gun or a malfunctioning semi-auto. All that was given was that they tested it, it fired multiple shots with one trigger pull, and that meets the definition of machine gun.

just out of curiosity, how would a defense witness rebut testimony that he hadn't heard?

 

[Bonestorm]

to be sure, that is exactly what it is. the case and trial notes on Olofsons conviction show that the ATF agent didn't even describe what testing methods they used to determine whether his weapon was a machine gun or a malfunctioning semi-auto. All that was given was that they tested it, it fired multiple shots with one trigger pull, and that meets the definition of machine gun.

just out of curiosity, how would a defense witness rebut testimony that he hadn't heard?

Defense counsel heard it. The defendant heard it. Defense counsel and defendant presumably can discuss matters with their own expert.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Defense counsel heard it. The defendant heard it. Defense counsel and defendant presumably can discuss matters with their own expert.

Hey Soc, can that allow for direct rebuttal testimony, or would it possibly be considered 'hearsay'? a technicality for sure, but I can certainly see the DOJ attempting to use such an excuse.