Hearsay A Question

Doc

Just wait and see what Clemens lawyers do !!!!

Here's your answer TR:
Clemens attorney said

“Everybody assumes this is true and a man’s reputation and all these years is thrown and gone just like that,” Hardin said during a news conference at his Houston office. “Even if it turns out it didn’t happen, he is ruined.”

Quite a response. It might be time to get off the hero worship pedestal.

1ggy


The only only hero I ever had was my Dad and he passed 18 months ago--BTW --he refused to be put on a pedestal

Also I am not a Clemens fan-- I only say there is no proof but words from a perhaps disgruntled person--I find the Mitchell report terribly flawed by the fact that they have no "CONCRETE PROOF" on anyone other than the "outers"

NO WAY will Clemens sue for libel. That would trigger discovery and the Clemens on the stand under oath.

Hearsay is an evidentiary standard for a court of law. The Mitchell report isn't a legal proceeding, and isn't bund by that kind of standard. It IS subject to libel law, but if Mitchel fingered Clemens, you can bet your bottom dollar he has the goods on him.

Rob


From reading the report I would not count on it

not all of the report was public

TR: Sorry for your loss.

Regarding this steroid mess, as a person who kids might look to for advice, your use of legalisms (in a non-legal forum) to try and cover up the obvious is troubling. The players whom you so stridently protect are the ones (through their union) who fought this thing every step of the way. IF a few innocents get bloody in cleaning this thing up, its their own fault for having a union position so defiant.
I've read your posts in the past and despite often over the top rhetoric and enjoying a good fight, your observations on east coast colleges have been pretty good. Now, I wouldn't listen to a thing you say if this is truly your judgement on this epidemic.

A large percentage of the players named either failed tests, sent checks to Radomski, were proven to have bought HGH from a shady clinic or were otherwise proven to have been involved with PEDs. There was at least one case where the investigators determined despite this type of evidence that the player could not be proved to have taken PEDs and he was not included.

There were a few where only testimony from a person the investigators believed along with other "hearsay" type testimony and along with sudden changes in physique and ability were used to name the players.

How does that become "largely hearsay"?

JMO, but Clemens will not sue.

Doc hearsay is when you repeat something that someone else stated and didn't witness yourself.
This testomony would not be permitted ina court of law. I believe the info was given under oath and is subject to libel laws if inaccurate. Also subject to purjury laws.

quote:

“Even if it turns out it didn’t happen, he is ruined.”

That is BS if I ever heard BS.

This is not a hearsay situation.

I'll reprint here my comments on another, parallel thread:

If someone said to the Mitchell investigators, "I didn't see it happening myself, but so-and-so told me he saw it happening," that would be hearsay. The problem with hearsay is that we can't judge the credibility of the source, and in particular, if we don't make the source of the information sit through questioning that seeks either to establish or refute his credibility, then the accusation is inherently unreliable.

But when someone says, "I was there and I saw it happen," or "I was there and I held the hypodermic needle and injected Roger Clemens in his buttocks", that is not hearsay. That is a first-hand statement from an eye witness. And that is the evidence against Clemens.

Now, you can say that Roger denies that person's statements. But it is not at all unusual for the wrongdoer to issue blanket denials. The question now is, who is more credible, the accuser, or Roger?

The fact is, each of these players was given the full and fair opportunity to come to the investigators and tell his side of the story. And almost all of them refused. That in itself is very telling.

In criminal cases, you have a right not to incriminate yourself, and the law prohibits the prosecution from drawing any inferences from your refusal to talk, as a means of protecting your right against self-incrimination. But most folks who let strong accusations go unrefuted end up convicted.

And the privilege against self-incrimination doesn't even apply outside the criminal context. In civil cases and other, non-court matters, inferences are typically drawn from a refusal to talk or otherwise cooperate. That's because we normally expect an innocent man to want to clear his name and protest his innocence. An accused who refuses to talk deprives us of his own admission of guilt, but we naturally draw the conclusion that he is guilty nonetheless.

According to the Mitchell report, a person who has established that he has first hand knowledge has accused Clemens. It is also noteworthy when someone is candid enough to admit their own complicity. Those types of witnesses are typically deemed very credible. And in the face of that very credible evidence, Clemens has refused to cooperate, refused to sit for questioning.

Any reasonable person would reach the natural conclusion: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

Not hearsay. Not unfair to conclude guilt. At this point the ball is in Roger's court and if he really expects anyone to believe him, he'd better get busy. The indignant denial game didn't work for Bonds, didn't work for Palmeiro, didn't work for McGwire. It won't work for Clemens, either. If he's not careful, his adoring fans will turn on him every bit as quickly as Michael Vick's turned on him.

MIDLO

If it is not hearsay how it is backed up ???

Midlo you are absolutely correct.

How well did it work for Marion Jones?

In all fairness, we have to admit that the players were in essence told by the players union to not cooperate with the investigation. For that reason, even an innocent player would be expected to not testify on his own behalf before the Mitchell investigators.

Having said that, I don't believe there was anything wrong in how Mitchell handled the report and there was little if any hearsay in the report.

Not "Being Backed Up" and not being hearsay are two different issues.
Hearsay is "An out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted".
A witness can testify (as MD has stated) "I saw this". A fair point of x-exam may be, "who else was there,or did you make notes of this at the time, or is this event taped or memorialized in any manner" If the answers aer "no one, no and no" it may be that the statement is not "Backed Up" . This does not make the witness' statement inadmissable, it may be that the weight/credibility of the statement may suffer do to the lack of supporting evidence.

In many tribunals (admisinstrative hearings, arbitrations), "hearsay" is admissible. The trier of fact (maybe in this case the public in general) will be instructed to take into consideration that the evidence offered has not been subject to x exam and therefore credit the weight that evidence accordingly.

At least Jones admitted her guilt and was stiped of all her medals. You can see the difference when you have a strong union in BB and not in track and field. They should go after the union for conspiracy.

The right way to have done this is to notify the player he was going to be named before the report came out to the public. It is my understanding that they sent out a memo to every single Major League player at the beginning of the investigation asking for interviews. It has been said that the players union recommended players not to respond.

Had they notified those who were to have their names actually released, those players and their agents surely would have been glad to grant an interview. This may or may not have changed anything, but it sure would have been the fair way to handle it and to gather both sides. IMO

which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App

The statements in the Mitchell report are not hearsay. They are direct staements by the witness as to whatt they saw or did.
As Midlo said the credibility of the witness is at the heart of the matter. I am sure they were extremely cautious in reporting those names. It is also possible to convict on circumstancial evidence if it meets the burden of proof.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
NO WAY will Clemens sue for libel. That would trigger discovery and the Clemens on the stand under oath.

Hearsay is an evidentiary standard for a court of law. The Mitchell report isn't a legal proceeding, and isn't bund by that kind of standard. It IS subject to libel law, but if Mitchel fingered Clemens, you can bet your bottom dollar he has the goods on him.

Kevin Brown was fingered on "GM suspects steroids." Is that "the goods."