| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> So if I act insulting toward you, live with it.
<1> JBlitzen do carry on
<1> JBlitzen anything else?
<2> er, what don't you understand cl0ud ?
<0> You're not worthy of intellectual debate, cloud.
<3> Cl0ud, he's pasted a link to an actual statute
<3> just go read it
<1> rdragon-wrk is the only one who actually said something I agreed with
<3> look it up for other states if you disagree.
<4> The whole problem stems from the first p***age
<3> like it or not, a lot of crimes involve 2 people
<1> yep
<3> it's clear what the intent of the exception is
<4> Its a horrible ambiguos sentence
<1> like it or not, the state brings criminal charges
<3> you don't want to give a person spousal privilege in a case where they can use it to get out of crimes they're committing against their spouse.
<3> duh
<4> The second p***age is much clearer and not open for interpretation
<3> now, go read the statute
<3> there's no point in arguing your point further
<3> you're wrong.
<4> Only the second one.
<4> The first one is bad.
<4> they needed more parenthesis in their code so to speak
<1> Noidea what point would I be trying to make again?
<0> The first one wasn't a real statute
<1> Noidea all I was saying is that the exception holds
<0> It was just a supposedly explanatory document.
<3> and, you're wrong.
<0> See why I lose patience with these people, ni
<4> Side note, its not a federal thing correct? or is it?
<0> Well
<0> I'm sure there's a federal statute about it for federal actions
<1> Noidea you pasted support for it holding...perhaps we're just disagreeing on semantics
<0> State statute on spousal privilege wouldn't protect anybody in federal court, and I think there's federal spousal privilege, so I'm sure it's somewhere in US code, Twister. But naturally it wouldn't apply to non-federal proceedings.
<3> cl0ud, the exception holds?
<4> I think this statute leads to a lot of mistrials and / or lots of people getting thrown out of court for angy wife vs husband or vice versa.
<0> (As such; there'd probably be a state equivalent)
<0> I dunno
<0> I'm sure there are a lot of private discussions on motions to suppress testimony
<3> So, you're still stuck believing there's no spousal privilege in all criminal cases?
<1> Noidea yes, spouses can testify for each other during criminal trials as long as they arent involved in crime against each other
<0> Or civil, if his original reading was consistent, noidea.
<4> wrong.
<3> So
<4> cl0ud, no, thats the whole reason it was enacted.
<0> In his parsing, "civil actions or proceedings in which" would mean "(civil actions) or (proceedings in which)"
<3> they can't testify in trials where they've committed crimes against each other?
<4> To allow husbands and wifes to be truthful to one another
<1> err I'm sorry, I said it backwards...they CANNOT
<0> And, the same syntax was used for criminal actions or proceedings
<0> So cloud is telling us that spousal privilege never applies.
<1> unless thye were involved in crime against each other
<4> right, everyone agrees
<0> Way to use that high school diploma literacy, cloud.
<3> And, that's what everyone has been telling you from the beginning cl0ud.
<1> Noidea oops, I was trying to communicate that too...my apologies
<0> Sure.
<0> So what's your position now?
<0> Just so it's clear.
<4> Spousal priviledge applies in all cases except spouse vs spouse, and civil matters.
<1> JBlitzen anything else to add? I'm trying to understand where I'm confused and you're just spouting off as usual
<0> I'll have something to add when you respond to my goddamned simple straightforward courteous request like a rational human being instead of a fussy angst ridden teenager.
<0> Your only obstacle to personal growth is your active refusal to pursue it.
<1> I suppose we can move on now?
<0> That's annoying in its most subtle forms and egregious at worst.
<4> err no
<0> No, we can't, because I'm not convinced that your position is accurate.
<4> Spousal priviledge applies in all cases except spouse vs spouse.
<0> You just spit out some bull**** and pretended to agree with people.
<4> is that the only caveat?
<0> But you still can't syntactically frame your position.
<0> twister, well, most
<0> I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions
<0> As someone said, judges might throw it out on the basis that the communication wasn't related to the marriage
<0> Or maybe it's overruled by a criminal conspiracy charge
<0> Or some such
<4> right, according to the word priviledge
<3> there's no d in privilege
<3> I make that same mistake all the time.
<0> I think the judge would have to have some reason based on case law and the statutes, but basically, you're right.
<4> good call.
<0> Spousal privilege applies except where the action is between the spouses
<0> Which might raise a question about whether that would break privilege elsewhere
<4> and in states that don't have it.
<0> Say **** and Jane rob banks together
<0> And they're charged with whatever
<0> Spousal privilege might protect **** from Jane flipping on him
<4> they are safe from eachother through priviledge and 5th ammendment
<1> a spouse can thus NOT be forced to testify in a murder trial against his/her spouse unless there was conspiracy or other circumstances involving the nondefendant spouse in the crime?
<0> But then if they get a divorce, and Jane mentions the robbery in her testimony in the civil action
<0> Could that be used against **** in the criminal proceeding
<4> err no, ***uming they don't want to testify
<0> See, that's an interesting question to me
<1> Twister7 ***uming, yes
<0> cloud, the spouse can't divulge privileged communication in their testimony.
<0> Not, doesn't have, or can't be forced to, but simply can't.
<1> JBlitzen can't, or won't be forced to?
<4> but the divorce is civil one vs the other
<0> Like attorney client privilege, the attorney simply can't.
<1> JBlitzen ah
<4> and they hate each other by that point haha
<0> Hence my question a minute ago as to whether the spouse could get around it by testifying in a separate direct action
<0> Dunno about that.
<4> doubt it, it would hold as inadmissible
<0> Seems unlikely, but it's a thought.
<4> sorry for the spelling
<0> Well, it's in the public record at that point
<0> But you might be right
<0> Anyway, that's that for this discussion.
<4> similar to a double jepardy like thing?
<4> laws are not perfect so they need rules
<0> Not exactly
<4> even known guilty people have to be protected from time to time
<0> This would be a question of whether you can use testimony from an unrelated civil case against a person in a criminal case
<0> I don't know the answer to that
<4> the criminal case takes precedent and the two are unrelated was my understanding.
<4> another spelling / grammar error by me.
<4> want another argument... is a pound a unit of weight or m***? ;)
<0> Neither
<0> It's a unit of currency
<1> I don't need another yelling-at, thanks anyways
<4> well, there was no c:) neither
<0> It's a unit of weight, then
<4> which is incorrect according to the standard
<4> except in a whole crapload of exceptions
<2> I think it's the other way around - you use stuff from the criminal case (like, the outcome) to form the civil case
<2> IANAL
<4> only once the criminal case is over
<4> afaik
<2> well, yeah
<1> proponderance of the evidence etc
<2> you don't know the outcome until it's over ;)
<4> lol
<2> i'm hungry...
<4> yes, meaning it had the precedence
<0> That's not the case I was discussion, rdragon
<0> I was talking about using civil testimony as an end-around to spousal privilege in a criminal action
<4> e.g. can you have a civil case while a criminal case is underway?
<0> Keep up!
<0> I don't see why not, although the timing might be difficult.
<2> oh, shrug
<4> related civil case that is
<1> you might be able to if the civil courts weren't so overloaded
<4> see, I knew there was a reason for lawyers some way some how heh
<5> "- .. irc is a wonderful privilege, not a right. you won't ruin it. - .. those who abuse our policies will see damnation. ie: DIE!"
<5> From the mesa.az.us.undernet.org motd. That's harsh.
<2> heh
<6> hey .... i got a question and im a relitavely new programer u probly wont be able to help
<7> psycology, eh?
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#mirc
#MissKitten
quencers
Fedora $HOME/.dmrc ignored
proftp root acces
#networking
#mirc
#slice
javascript contents of a text
#chatzone
|
|