Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

Sure... it was in the OP (and I think I posted it another time) Also posted in the other thread.

Neither of those links works for me; they deliver "page not found" messages.

Ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

They quote lawyers answering the question of whether or not testimony alone is enough to get a conviction. Under our current system, it is, for now. What our resident brick walls won't understand, is that's changing. Being that our system is based upon case law and precedent, yes, testimony can get you tossed in the jug for decades and even cost you your life. The vastly more important question that is being asked in this thread, and in our judicial system is "Should it?" After all, our constitution sets the requisite evidence for a guilty conviction for treason at two reliable witnesses. On the other hand, the number of cases where testimony is the primary motivator for a guilty verdict later being overturned by physical evidence keeps growing and growing. Judges are beginning to instruct juries on the failings of testimony as evidence. Jurors are asking why there is no/so little physical evidence. Even if RR is right and the last is a by-product of television shows, good! Precedent and common law do not take into account shifts in our ability to find and use physical evidence. Fortunately, precedent can change and while it is a slow process, it's doing so now.

I have stated repeatedly (though the brick walls keep conveniently "forgetting") that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence. They just don't like the fact that I don't believe it's sufficient on it's own.

I hope I live to see the day when testimony, by itself, cannot lead to a conviction. In an age where blood spatter from a blunt trauma head wound can be used to determine if the perpetrator is left- or right-handed, I believe we're already there and just waiting for the courts to catch up.