So he's admitting to a crime - under oath - to deliberately tank the case? You're going with that?

Nope. Simply pointing out that even though someone has lied before - even though that person has lied often enough that people regard them as inherently untrustworthy - there will still be circumstances when what they say is believable.

You believe him when he admitted to a crime. Because that's what they call in the legal biz a "statement against interest." You can't think of a plausible reason why he would lie....so the default is to assume he's telling the truth.

That's how flawed, even dishonest witnesses often end up putting away the criminal defendants they testify against...as in mob informants underpinning the convictions of mob bosses. Because juries like to assess the credibility of witnesses in context, rather than simply deciding that once a person has been shown to lie, that everything that comes out of their mouth is to be disbelieved.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.