crossposted at oxdown gazette and brendan calling
Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday said that “the use of hearsay will be limited.”
But the filing showed that military prosecutors would continue to rely extensively on hearsay evidence that might be barred in federal court. A memorandum describing the administration’s changes that was filed with the military judges said that such “hearsay admissibility remains much broader than in domestic courts” in the United States.
One of the senior administration officials said that although federal courts bar many kinds of hearsay evidence, “the hearsay rule is not one of those things that is rooted in American values.”
Really? “”the hearsay rule is not one of those things that is rooted in American values”? Really?
Far be it from ME to question an official from the Obama Administration. After all, the president was a constitutional law professor. And yet some crazy blogger calls foul.
So i googled “history hearsay rule”, which brought me to a discussion of the 6th Amendment of the US constitution.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. According to Acts of the Apostles 25:16, the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul, stated: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.”
Many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed the right of the accused under the Confrontation Clause to have a face-to-face confrontation with the accuser, and an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser. In the 2004 decision Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to confront one’s accusers could not be taken away in cases where judges believe that testimonial hearsay evidence is reliable, because such hearsay evidence had not had its reliability tested through the procedural crucible of cross-examination.[1].
So i guess the 6th Amendment “is not one of those things that is rooted in American values”.
Oh, the things i learn!
by the way, i forgot the link: the blockquote is from wikipedia.
Since I’ve moved to Australia I’ve learned not to say “root” – since it’s slang for sex – similar to the American use of “screw”. One does not “root, root, root” for the home team – unless one likes that sort of thing.
But in this case I’ll make an exception to say that “American values are thoroughly rooted.”
A very good use of your adopted country’s language, keres. How goes Tassie?
I don’t practice in the federal courts and my knowledge applies to the law of my state, New York. A full discussion of the hearsay rule and its exceptions could fill many pages. Suffice it to say that hearsay exceptions are generally statements that are allowed in because there is some indicia of reliability. In at least some hearsay exceptions, the declarant may be unavailable.
Here is a good basic definition.
I have no idea how allegations of being rooted (or not) in American values has any relevance here.
yeah, i addressed this at oxdown too.
I’m aware that there are hearsay exceptions. what i take issue with is the statement that the hearsay rule has no roots in american values, when clearly it does.
it’s audacious, a deliberate misstatement of the facts, offered in the hope that no one will question it. imagine saying that free exercise of religion has no roots in american values, or something else. it’s just ridiculous.
So, am I understanding this correctly? Even though the current president was a Constitutional Law professor-we STILL have a president who isn’t very familiar with the Constitution?
The problem is not being able to distinguish right and wrong. That presidential ability continues to be missing on nearly any matter dealing with alleged terrorists.
I’m not sure what the blind spot is here. I am, in fact, really fucking baffled by Obama’s behavior on this point, and while I have a few suspicions, he hasn’t been in office long enough for me to put much confidence in any of them — though my confidence in him is steadily eroding. I am starting to catch a whiff of something that smells remarkably like Clintonist triangulation, though.
That said, it was plain from the beginning that Obama is liberal only in comparison to the far-right extremism of the present day. There was no sunlight between him and Clinton, and the ideological stance of the Clintons was not appreciably to the left of Richard Nixon, who would by today’s standards be considered a blue dog Democrat.
The pendulum that took thirty years to swing to the far right will not swing back in a day. Dammit.