In an article on CNN.com (found here) regarding the Drew Peterson murder case, a small portion of it makes mention of the fact that over a months worth of hearings have been held regarding the inclusion of hearsay evidence. While the article paid very little attention to it, mostly reporting it as a bit of background on what has happened in the case so far it got me thinking.
It is fair to say that I am not the sort of person who would ignore evidence just because the defense felt it is unfair to them, but hearsay evidence is pushing it even by my standards. It seems to me that it is trying to convict someone over what some guy said at the bar. Certainly if this is brought up in conjunction with either physical or direct witness evidence then sure toss it in, but make sure that the jury knows it is nothing more then rumor and hearsay. However, if all you have is hearsay I'm inclined to think that you are just grabbing at straws and bringing someone to trial over that makes a mockery of the justice system.
It is fair to say that I am not the sort of person who would ignore evidence just because the defense felt it is unfair to them, but hearsay evidence is pushing it even by my standards. It seems to me that it is trying to convict someone over what some guy said at the bar. Certainly if this is brought up in conjunction with either physical or direct witness evidence then sure toss it in, but make sure that the jury knows it is nothing more then rumor and hearsay. However, if all you have is hearsay I'm inclined to think that you are just grabbing at straws and bringing someone to trial over that makes a mockery of the justice system.
Leave a comment