Jon Katz at Underdog posts about a Maryland decision,
The Backdoor of Background: Still Ajar
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simple Justice
Jon Katz at Underdog posts about a Maryland decision,
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s the difference between that and: Without stating who and what he/she said did you talk to someone? After talking to someone, where did you go? Were you looking for someone? Describe that person.
That’s the stripped down version, no details but explains how the cop ended up at particular place. Despite the absence of details, it invited speculation (obviously) into all the unspoken things that were of sufficient weight to make the cop go somewhere and look for someone. The speculation is often as dangerous as the details, and does nothing to determine the validity and merit of the initiation of the police action.
The point remains, if there’s a reason a cop approaches a person on the street, and you want to get it before a jury, then introduce it through admissible evidence. If you don’t have that evidence, then you can’t use it. Inadmissible allegations of fact, detailed or not, are still inadmissible.
Lawyers Are Not Fungible
There’s an old joke about physicians: What do you call the guy who graduated last in his medical school class?