tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post4120736303319585185..comments2024-03-28T00:50:16.901-05:00Comments on Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center: The One Witness Rule as GamesmanshipMurray Newmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00662196272138109874noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-19964433518370054102020-04-23T09:13:08.157-05:002020-04-23T09:13:08.157-05:00Hello Nathan. You are about twelve years late to ...Hello Nathan. You are about twelve years late to this post, which I wrote in Murray Newmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11386971054953149547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-61742993028001398012020-04-22T16:47:20.143-05:002020-04-22T16:47:20.143-05:00"But the crux of the case is going to be that..."But the crux of the case is going to be that one witness: the child."<br /><br />Holding one witness as more important than the rest is not the same as using only one witness period.<br /><br /><br />"Prosecutors do have to identify those jurors who won't convict without the scientific evidence or a corroborating witness, because that's often times all we've got. That makes the question important, and there's nothing unfair about asking it."<br /><br />You have a bizarre concept of fairness if you think we only ought to select jurors that are convenient to the prosecution. <br /><br />"So, making the assumption, that you believe the witness beyond a reasonable doubt as to all the evidence, can you convict? Or are you going to require something even more than that?"<br /><br />You're assuming we deny this rule out of some arbitrary moral conviction. Wrong. It is a simple matter of logic. A single witness is only capable of providing anecdotal evidence if the defendant either a)never makes a defense mistake or b)doesn't testify at all. If the defendant makes a mistake in testimony that serves to corroborate the victim's story that means we are outside the scope of single witness rule. If the defendant never testifies at all there is no corroboration so therefore there is nothing beyond a reasonable doubt period.<br /><br />I'm mad because I wanted to serve on the jury one time but was unable to because I disagreed with the Single Witness rule. It makes bogus philosophical assumptions (and possibly bogus moral assumptions). Nathan Metricnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-47628307248610445052015-05-21T09:13:50.212-05:002015-05-21T09:13:50.212-05:00So what about the SCORNED LOVER and drummed up cas...So what about the SCORNED LOVER and drummed up cases because of them? Texas has the most stupid laws and should be way more regulated!tracy peeblesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-68625674113567696502008-07-27T17:40:00.000-05:002008-07-27T17:40:00.000-05:00Some of those "delayed outcry kiddie cases" are pr...Some of those "delayed outcry kiddie cases" are pretty problematic; the longer it's been since the alleged crime occurred, the less likely it is their memory is accurate and has been tainted by other sources. (See the study mentioned in the post linked under "certainty" about people's Challenger disaster memories.)<BR/><BR/>Re your comment: "what's the alternative really? Not allowing one witness cases? Those delayed outcry kiddie cases are just banned without a confession?" I'd say yes, with the caveat that there are other ways to corroborate (contemporaneous admissions to others, childhood medical records, etc.) besides a confession. But kids don't always tell the truth and adults don't always accurately remember their childhood. Do you remember the MacMartin preschool case? Just because a kid says it doesn't make it true.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of DNA exonerations from child rape cases where a kid accused the wrong person. We know eyewitnesses sometimes make mistakes - even when they're absolutely certain - so in that context how can their uncorroborated testimony be enough to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt? Just because you don't have more evidence doesn't mean a single person's testimony can possibly meet that standard, does it? What if you couldn't find more evidence because the victim's wrong and the D is innocent? <BR/><BR/>With that, I'll look forward to reading your additional thoughts if you do decide to post on the subject.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-3042458262646062622008-07-27T15:53:00.000-05:002008-07-27T15:53:00.000-05:00Hey Grits,I read your article. Don't get a big he...Hey Grits,<BR/>I read your article. Don't get a big head, but I actually read what you write every day. And I see where you are coming from. However, citing the Bible can work on both sides of many arguments (i.e. "eye for an eye" versus the forgiveness taught by Jesus), and ultimately, I'm not a Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination.<BR/>And I also think it's worth noting that whether a person can follow the One Witness Rule doesn't say anything at all about their moral character. Prosecutors don't consider those who can't follow that rule as "bad people". The point of my article was that it isn't some sort of smoke and mirrors type of question as Mark stated in his post.<BR/>I understand your concern and anyone's concern with a case where there is one witness. And when there is a one witness case, prosecutors will have an uphill battle. That "one witness" had better be pretty damn convincing if they are going to win over 12 people. <BR/>But what's the alternative really? Not allowing one witness cases? Those delayed outcry kiddie cases are just banned without a confession? I may post on that in a bit.Murray Newmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00662196272138109874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-8400709642523905122008-07-27T11:33:00.000-05:002008-07-27T11:33:00.000-05:00Don't know if you saw, AHCL, but I had a reaction ...Don't know if you saw, AHCL, but I had a reaction to Mark's one witness post as well noting that a consequence of the "one witness" rule is that looking back historically, it would exclude, e.g., <A HREF="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/three-guys-who-couldnt-be-on-harris.html" REL="nofollow">Moses, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul</A>. Nope, we definitely don't want anyone with THEIR values on the jury, right? Let's get rid of the Bible readers, too, with that one - at least those who take their faith seriously.<BR/><BR/>We agree about the motive for asking the question when you write, "Prosecutors do have to identify those jurors who won't convict without the scientific evidence or a corroborating witness, because that's often times all we've got."<BR/><BR/>I get that, but that's also how wrongful convictions happen. Quite a few of the Texas DNA exonerations occurred when a complaining witness who was "<A HREF="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/eyewitnesses-and-feeling-of-knowing.html" REL="nofollow">certain</A>" of an identification but DNA later proved the ID was wrong.<BR/><BR/>That's why corroboration is important, because sometimes when one witness is all a prosecutor has, it means they've got the wrong person.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-43176229199063082812008-07-21T23:05:00.000-05:002008-07-21T23:05:00.000-05:00That was, perhaps, the most elegant post you have ...That was, perhaps, the most elegant post you have ever made. Totally excellent.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you are just banging this stuff out on the keyboard or if it takes you a long time to gather such coherent thoughts and opinions, but you're speaking the truth for me.<BR/><BR/>God bless those children and their courage and honesty. <BR/><BR/>The worst one witness trial moment of my prosecutorial career was having to present a darling 4 year old to testify. Her molester was later convicted and got mucho time, an "essentially life sentence". You know, an old guy that gets a sentence that for him is a life sentence. <BR/><BR/>Me, after her testimony I retreated to the bathroom where I cried like a baby at having to put that child through that experience. And although in that case she had to testify, I sure felt like a bastard for a while for putting that child on the stand.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for protecting our children, AHCL!<BR/><BR/>TexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-43945222710092026732008-07-21T21:58:00.000-05:002008-07-21T21:58:00.000-05:00From the other side of the fence, I had this come ...From the other side of the fence, I had this come up in April while I was in a (Fort Bend County) jury pool. The case was a young girl (I found out later she was 9-years-old) who'd allegedly been repeatedly sexually assaulted by a family friend.<BR/><BR/>I have to say the attorneys made the One Witness Rule a big deal. I'd never heard of it before, but I had no problem understanding it. Judging by the questions jurors asked neither did they.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I wasn't picked bye-the-way. A sheriff's deputy friend of mine told me they convicted.Kesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447485131691627862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-30442313426334193002008-07-21T16:33:00.000-05:002008-07-21T16:33:00.000-05:00I'll humbly admit arrogance, but I don't think I e...I'll humbly admit arrogance, but I don't think I ever said that not a single Harris County prosecutor could do an effective voir dire; I may have said that I'd never seen a prosecutor do a voir dire worth a damn. Even that, however, has changed -- Mike Trent, for example, did a good voir dire in our theft trial last week. He didn't follow the usual template, and he didn't ask the one-witness question (even though he had only one witness to prove the value of the allegedly stolen property).<BR/><BR/>I also put my name on anything I write. If I'm wrong I'm responsible, and I'll cop to it.<BR/><BR/>Nope, no anonymous sniping for me.Mark Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04128739833441582127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-35065943938780509042008-07-21T08:55:00.000-05:002008-07-21T08:55:00.000-05:00Mark is a very capable defense lawyer. He is at t...Mark is a very capable defense lawyer. He is at times, however, as arrogant as he is capable. I have seen him state before that there is not a prosecutor in Harris County who has the ability to deliver an effective voir dire. Oh, but when a prosecutor gets a truly qualified jury with the one witness rule, that is gamesmanship, not skillful voir dire? Come on, Mark...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-90783442069345246982008-07-21T08:02:00.000-05:002008-07-21T08:02:00.000-05:00Yeah, there have been lots of times I wanted to fi...Yeah, there have been lots of times I wanted to file a Motion to Change Facts.Ron in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496306119920809104noreply@blogger.com