Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi terry:
Ok Now I see what you mean about the felony witnesses. :)
As for McDougal. To be honest I still don't think her testimony would
be taken seriously by anyone at this point. No matter what she had to
say (unless it was backed up by hard evidence) wouldn't be believed.
Either one would think she just is tired of the whole thing and wants to
get out of jail, or she is protecting the President, or whatever. After
all of this, there could be all kinds of reasons she would suddenly
change her mind and testify.
The best reason being the sentence she is doing now will be over in a
few months, she wants to get married, and go on with her life.
I just don't think the judge is going to throw her back in jail. It's
pointless, IMO, now. And Starr has enough bad publicity to fight, he
certainly doesn't need anymore, which he would get if he pushed it
again.
Sue
> Hi Sue,
>
> It is up to the jury to evaluate any witness. The great majority of people
> in the witness protection program are criminals themselves, convicted or
> not. Some who were not and left the program despite the threat to their
> personal security complained bitterly of their treatment as criminals.
>
> The reason Susan McDougal did not just go before the grand jury and lie for
> Clinton is that Starr has evidence that would impeach her. That is, of
> course, the source of the nonsensical claim that she was willing to go to
> jail to avoid having to go to jail. It is amazing that adults of reasonable
> intelligence can swallow such stuff.
>
> I can understand why a prosecutor might not put on minor and unnecessary
> witnesses as apparently happened in your jury duty when he found out the
> witnesses were convicted felons. Naturally a prosecutor would prefer only
> the most innocent and chaste of witnesses but they are not always available
> and are most unlikely as witnesses to conspiracy.
--
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
