Evidence Discrepancy

[FreeMauMau]

Perhaps the question was asked that way for that purpose. The instructor might have been testing to see if the student could recognize the actual issue.

I wanted to know how it meets the Federal Rules of Evidence 901. How is a phone device with a different phone number than the testified WhatsApp chat be accepted as evidence for such.

I suppose the judge was bamboozled himself, as the phone number for the device was only disclosed in the Notice of Expert Testimony day before trial, but at trial the expert testified on a different phone number not related to device.

Well who knows, the justice system can never be wrong according to the responses.

 

[adjusterjack]

Were you the defendant?
Were you convicted?

If no, then who are you in relation to the case?

 

[quincy]

I wanted to know how it meets the Federal Rules of Evidence 901. How is a phone device with a different phone number than the testified WhatsApp chat be accepted as evidence for such.

I suppose the judge was bamboozled himself, as the phone number for the device was only disclosed in the Notice of Expert Testimony day before trial, but at trial the expert testified on a different phone number not related to device.

Well who knows, the justice system can never be wrong according to the responses.

The time to dispute an expert’s testimony is during the trial.

Are you a student and is your question one given to you by your professor, or were you a party to the case, or are you just a curious sort?

 

[FreeMauMau]

The time to dispute an expert’s testimony is during the trial.

Are you a student and is your question one given to you by your professor, or were you a party to the case, or are you just a curious sort?

I just wanted advice on how the judicial system would right that sort of a wrong. But I see there's none in place, at least according to the above advice.

 

[zddoodah]

I just wanted advice on how the judicial system would right that sort of a wrong.

Once again:

Were you the defendant?
Were you convicted?

If no, then who are you in relation to the case?

"Taxing Matters" response #3 in the thread explained the issue well. If the defendant believes that the verdict wasn't supported by substantial evidence, he is free to appeal.

Beyond that, you're referring to evidence entirely out of context. You didn't even offer us redacted quotes from the relevant messages or tell us what the charges were. There's nothing much we can tell you when you don't provide background facts and, indeed, refuse to answer relevant questions.

 

[quincy]

I just wanted advice on how the judicial system would right that sort of a wrong. But I see there's none in place, at least according to the above advice.

It is possible for a conviction to be appealed on various grounds. Ineffective counsel could be grounds for an appeal, for example. Just not liking the outcome would not be grounds, however.

So … you are just a curious sort who happened to stumble upon this question, huh. Or are you a student hoping to find someone to help you with a course assignment?

 

[FreeMauMau]

Once again:

Were you the defendant?
Were you convicted?

If no, then who are you in relation to the case?

"Taxing Matters" response #3 in the thread explained the issue well. If the defendant believes that the verdict wasn't supported by substantial evidence, he is free to appeal.

Beyond that, you're referring to evidence entirely out of context. You didn't even offer us redacted quotes from the relevant messages or tell us what the charges were. There's nothing much we can tell you when you don't provide background facts and, indeed, refuse to answer relevant questions.

Thabk you for chiming in, I can definitely see where if someone is the defendant or not comes into play. Also, whether one is convicted or not, changes the outcome or relief sought.

Why would you think quotes from relevant messages not belonging to the phone in evidence has any relevance? The substance of the messages dictaes its admissibility? Okay!

The charges should not have any play on the process the courts should take, but your response is telling me these are factors, though irrelevant to due process, will affect the outcome.

Substantial evidence is viewed in light most favorable to the government so that's no help at all when the judge cannot weigh the evidence and not to mention that the appellate court is required to view all evidence in favor to the wrong verdict, in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

 

[Just Blue]

Thabk you for chiming in, I can definitely see where if someone is the defendant or not comes into play. Also, whether one is convicted or not, changes the outcome or relief sought.

Why would you think quotes from relevant messages not belonging to the phone in evidence has any relevance? The substance of the messages dictaes its admissibility? Okay!

The charges should not have any play on the process the courts should take, but your response is telling me these are factors, though irrelevant to due process, will affect the outcome.

Substantial evidence is viewed in light most favorable to the government so that's no help at all when the judge cannot weigh the evidence and not to mention that the appellate court is required to view all evidence in favor to the wrong verdict, in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

Once again, FreeMauMau, you refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

Since you will not answer the questions asked of you, you should have a consultation with a local attorney.

 

[quincy]

… Substantial evidence is viewed in light most favorable to the government so that's no help at all when the judge cannot weigh the evidence and not to mention that the appellate court is required to view all evidence in favor to the wrong verdict, in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

What is bolded above is incorrect.

Who are you in all of this?

 

[FreeMauMau]

Once again, FreeMauMau, you refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

Since you will not answer the questions asked of you, you should have a consultation with a local attorney.

Once again, the meaningless and unnecessary interrogation into irrelevant matters.The the name of the forum is not weinterrogate.com, since the only advice you have is to seek legal advice by an attorney. By all means just tell me you have no idea on how to proceed and will be referring you to an attorney standard answer.

There's no court process that this forum can provide for some odd reason. Hmm.

 

[quincy]

Once again, the meaningless and unnecessary interrogation into irrelevant matters.The the name of the forum is not weinterrogate.com, since the only advice you have is to seek legal advice by an attorney. By all means just tell me you have no idea on how to proceed and will be referring you to an attorney standard answer.

There's no court process that this forum can provide for some odd reason. Hmm.

We assist people with their real life legal issues. We are not Google.

 

[FreeMauMau]

What is bolded above is incorrect.

Who are you in all of this?

Substantial evidence is incorrect? That is the best laugh and piece of advice I ever ever heard.

The federal due process standard for sufficiency is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (emphasis in original).

 

[FreeMauMau]

We assist people with their real life legal issues. We are not Google.

So you want a name to go along with my post? Does the charge change your opinion or advice? These questions do not lead to uncovering whether someone is not providing a real life issue or not. I'm not even sure how you're so off topic from the question. I get it you don't want to answer it. But insulting me in that manner is just despicablee.

 

[FreeMauMau]

It is possible for a conviction to be appealed on various grounds. Ineffective counsel could be grounds for an appeal, for example. Just not liking the outcome would not be grounds, however.

So … you are just a curious sort who happened to stumble upon this question, huh. Or are you a student hoping to find someone to help you with a course assignment?

So a WhatsApp chat from a phone number that does not belong to the submitted device does not seem acceptable to you? This a far cry from not liking the outcome.

 

[adjusterjack]

Who are you in all of this?

A troll, obviously. Reported and requested thread deletion.