Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I can understand what you are saying, but I thought that if a person was
a convicted felon their testimony wasn't considered any good (or
something to that effect). When I was on jury duty a couple of the so
called witnesses were excused because they had a felony record.
Sue
> I doubt there have been many, if any, mob leaders or druglords that have
> been convicted without the testimony of fellow mobsters. Starr's methods of
> going up the chain of conspirators is the natural progression of conviction
> by all prosecutors in such cases. The unwillingness of such witnesses to
> testify is what keeps the mob bosses out of jail just as it is doing with
> the Clintons so far.
>
> Susan McDougal herself was convicted largely by the testimony of David Hale,
> who was a convicted perjurer. Naturally such testimony has to be backed by
> reasonable evidence.
>
>
> Best, Terry
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
