• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A question for the lawyers bere

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
I've got a question about the OJ trial, but it could be about any trial.

When OJ put on the gloves, why didn't the prosecution get a chance to cross-examine him? Isn't his action of putting them on testifying about the gloves?

Maybe I'm wrong, but he effectively tried to tell the jury he didn't use those gloves. Why didn't have to take the stand to be cross-examined?
 
Clearly a racial topic for the politics board. Will need to get Obama's legal opinion on this before commenting.
 
The prosecution were the ones that asked him to out on the glove.
 
Surely a guy so damn awesome and important that be has "lawyers" be can contact over parody accounts on the internet bas a better resource than, well, the internet, for asking sucb questions?
 
Last edited:
RacerDeac said:
Surely a guy so damn awesome and important that be has "lawyers" be can contact over parody accounts on the internet bas a better resource than, well, the internet, for asking sucb questions?
Click to expand...

I really really hope that was intentional. I think it was ... and so posrep. Very sublte but effective.
 
Trying on an article of clothing isn't the same as giving testimony. It's considered demonstrative evidence. If the proponent can establish relevance to the judge (here, by showing OJ hadn't gained/lost a lot of weight, thus changing the size of his hands) it can come in, and the other side can try to show it's not reliable for whatever reason.
 
As with so many rj posts, this one lacks a foundation.
 
Junebug said:
Trying on an article of clothing isn't the same as giving testimony. It's considered demonstrative evidence. If the proponent can establish relevance to the judge (here, by showing OJ hadn't gained/lost a lot of weight, thus changing the size of his hands) it can come in, and the other side can try to show it's not reliable for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

He wore latex gloves which changed the size of the gloves. He also took anti-inflammatory medication. Would this have qualified?
 
The stupid demonstration was at the request of the dumbass prosecutor. The State asked for the performance, ergo, no cross examination.
 
Junebug said:
Trying on an article of clothing isn't the same as giving testimony. It's considered demonstrative evidence. If the proponent can establish relevance to the judge (here, by showing OJ hadn't gained/lost a lot of weight, thus changing the size of his hands) it can come in, and the other side can try to show it's not reliable for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top