Should hearsay be admissible in court?

I think he's guilty of something...probably several somethings. But this hearsay precedent bothers me. You need to be able to confront the witnesses against you, cross-examine them, get at their motives...it's unfair to murder victims but too much can go wrong with the telephone game when someone's freedom is at stake.
 
One of the lawyers was on the local radio this week or one of the cable shows and mentioned the fact that the hearsay law was passed after he was in custody. He then implied that since it is unconstitutional to make a law to encompass a past action as a crime, it might face that problem as well. The hearsay thing seems like a really bad idea, as much as it seems to make sense when a murder victim cannot be found.
 
I'll say it this way: I think he did it, and I think he should get away with it.

Unfortunately, that's rapidly becoming unacceptable in this country-that the equal application of the law and due process to all will result in some who are pretty clearly guilty of "something" to walk away without punishment. Thus, we have wrongful death civil suits in cases where the accused cannot be convicted of murder, and hearsay evidence being allowed-as Billy has pointed out, ex post facto-which is another reason why he's ultimately gonna get away with it. Did ya see the dude smiling on his way back to jail? He knows he's gonna get away with it-he's gonna get away with it all, becasue he was-unlike most murderers-methodical and thoughtful about his crimes.

Hearsay? Clearly not evidence, and clearly shouldn't be allowed, even in the case of a blatant, smarmy, conscienceless and gloating cold-blooded killer like Drew Peterson
 
Back
Top