Hearsay Statements by DCFS Are Inadmissable

Doug wrote:
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
New Case Ruling Says Hearsay Statements by DCFS Are Inadmissable
DCFS reform advocates made quite a buzz today by disseminating what
appears to be an important ruling in A.G.G. v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky.
....snip....snicker...

and furthermore....R R R R R

http://www.childabuselaw.info/lawnew...ayrejected.htm

... Child's Hearsay Rejected
Because He Was Not Competent To Testify
If a child is not competent to testify at trial, his hearsay statements
may be admitted only after a showing that, when he made those statements,
he could comprehend and truthfully relate the events described in them. So
saying, Division Three of the Washington Court of Appeals has reversed a
child molestation conviction in State v. C.J., Docket No. 19558-9-III, 32
P.3d 1051 (10/18/01). ...

Kane writes:

Competence, not "hearsay" is the issue, and always has been.

Hi, Kane,

In this state, it is only in the case when the child is not competent to
testify at trial that heresay statements may considered.


Why are you repeating what I've already posted?

My point was that the issue of "hearsay" is not based on it being
inadmissible because it's hearsay, but inadmissible only if the witness
is not competent. Can't you read?

If the child is competent to testify at trial, then there is no need for
exclusion of heresay rules. If the child is not competent to testify at
trial, then it must be proven that the child was competent to make the
statements outside of trial that will be used in exclusion of heresay rules.

All heresay rules require is that the person alledged to make the statement
be in the courtroom and subject to cross examination.

Yep. You might want to stop coming to the rescue of the village idiot
and address him. You are making the very points I made.

Now if a state wishes to bar hearsay that IS of course their privilege.

Of course it is. And in most civil and criminal actions, it is.

Which means, of course that the title of this posted thread is
incorrect, and Greg, who claimed such was inadmissible is incorrect.

Yet, instead of addressing either the author or Greg, you address me as
though I had failed to make the very points you list.

Why would you do that, Doug?

0:-

Greegor wrote:
The DCFS hearsay story above is regarding family court.

In CRIMINAL COURT the right to cross examine child which WAS
supposed to be there has been denied for some time,

What? Are you out of your mind?

Children have been cross examined in court, criminal and civil for many
years, Greg. There are simply SOME efforts made by attorneys, and even
the judge occasionally, to block it as being too traumatic for the child.

Where DO you get these nutso ideas.

And when you are wrong, and your patrone jumps on his old nag to come
galloping to your rescue, remind him to address YOU, the one in error,
not ME, the one that corrected you.

That's a good boy.

and
now that it's AFFIRMED, the systemites are in terror that
there might be an outbreak of due process.

Your opinion is not the question, Greg. Your claim, YOURS, that hearsay
in criminal trials is not admissible IS the question.

You were wrong. Be a man and say so, rather than try to change the
subject, pretending I disagreed with what you now claim.

Where did I argue the issue of admissibility in family court?

My comments and the references I provided to support them all agree with
the admissibility of hearsay in court based on competence, not the
category of evidence. NOT THE KIND OF COURT.

Is this the best you can do when you are caught making an error?

Tsk.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1101/p02s01-usju.htm

from the November 01, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1101/p02s01-usju.html
Is a trial unfair if accused can't confront accuser?
The Supreme Court looks at the conviction in a 1988 child-abuse trial.
One possible outcome is a flood of appeals.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON
In 1988, Marvin Bockting was accused of sexually abusing his 6-year-old
stepdaughter. The little girl told her mother and a police detective
about the alleged abuse, but she became too upset to testify at Mr.
Bockting's trial in Nevada.

Instead, the girl's mother and the detective testified about what she
had told them of the alleged sexual assault. Bockting was convicted and
sentenced to life in prison.

Now, 18 years later, Bockting is seeking to overturn his conviction
based on a 2004 US Supreme Court decision in a case called Crawford v.
Washington. In that case, the Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed the
constitutional right to confront one's accusers in court. At the same
time, the court struck down a rule that had allowed the introduction at
trial of testimonial statements made by a potential witness prior to
the trial.

Bockting says his trial was unfair because his jury was never allowed
to gauge the veracity of his stepdaughter's accusations through the
crucible of cross-examination in open court.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court takes up Bockting's case to decide whether
the high court's 2004 ruling should be applied retroactively to his
1988 child-abuse trial.

If it does apply retroactively, the case would also open the courthouse
doors potentially for thousands of other individuals convicted under
similar circumstances, where a key piece of testimonial evidence was
allowed into the trial without the constitutional safeguard of
cross-examination.

Since the Crawford decision was announced, it has been cited in roughly
20 cases each week seeking reversal of a conviction, according to a
friend-of-the-court brief filed by 38 state attorneys general.

"The sheer volume of judicial citations to Crawford attests to the
magnitude of the potential fallout if its holding applies
retroactively," the brief says. "As of July 7, 2006, nearly 1,900
reported court decisions had cited Crawford."

A decision applying the ruling retroactively could trigger not only
direct appeals in criminal cases, but also subsequent appeals under the
federal habeas corpus statute. "The resulting litigation would be
staggering, straining the capacity of the state and federal courts,"
the attorneys general warn.

Bockting's lawyer, Franny Forsman, the federal public defender in Las
Vegas, says such warnings are overblown. Of 49 judicial opinions
dealing with the Crawford issue handed down in state and federal courts
within the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals' jurisdiction, only five
resulted in defendants being granted some form of relief, Ms. Forsman
writes in her brief.

In Bockting's case, a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the
Crawford decision does apply retroactively. Prosecutors in Nevada
appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Nevada Attorney General George Chanos and US Solicitor General Paul
Clement are urging the high court to reject the Ninth Circuit's
reasoning. They say the Crawford decision established a new procedural
rule rather than the kind of monumental watershed rule whose
application is indispensable to a fair trial. To trigger retroactive
application, a new rule must rise to a level of such constitutional
import that not applying it would be fundamentally unfair to defendants
convicted under the prior legal regime.

Six federal circuit courts and numerous state appellate courts have
ruled that Crawford does not apply retroactively, says Mr. Chanos. "The
Ninth Circuit stands alone in its conclusion that Crawford is
retroactive," he writes in his brief.

At its core, the Bockting case presents the high court with a
conundrum, according to some analysts: how to acknowledge the
constitutional significance of the Crawford decision without opening a
Pandora's box of criminal appeals.

"I don't see how the court could say this is not a watershed rule. It
is such a fundamentally different way of thinking about the problem
than anything we had before," says Richard Friedman, a professor at the
University of Michigan Law School and a leading confrontation-clause
scholar.

But he says it would damage the development of this area of law if the
high court declared its Crawford decision retroactive.

Professor Friedman stresses that he is not an expert in legal
retroactivity. But he says if the court rules in favor of
retroactivity, many judges would probably embrace a more restrictive
view of the right to confront one's accusers at trial.

"I would be sorry to see Crawford held retroactive because I think it
would just be a dead weight around the clause," he says. "The tendency
[of judges] would be to construe the confrontation right narrowly
because of the horror about what the consequences would be if all these
cases that had been long decided had to be opened up."

Kane had a spaz and posted a whole rash of
messages rapid fire and then complains when it
appears somebody didn't catch every nuance?

Greegor wrote:
.....carefully aborting anything that might show him to be lying below.....

Kane had a spaz

Child, I don't have spazes, unless you can call laughter at you to the
point of wheezing a spaz.

and posted a whole rash of
messages rapid fire

Yes, and you can't guess why, can you?

I chose that method, because you and others rather like you, will play
with the content of messages, just as you just did, to hide from the truth.

and then complains

My complaint? What complaint? I'm tickled to death, child.

when it
appears somebody didn't catch every nuance?

Greg, if I said you were "a stupid asshole" it would be far too nuanced
for you to understand, and "catch." But I'm not saying that, of course. 0:-]

The point of the sequential postings was to help you isolate the various
comments of sources and not get confused.

And to make a gentlemanly offer to debate me to defend your position and
claims on admissibility of hearsay.

I see I failed, for obviously you haven't seen and accepted yet, even
after Doug tried one of his sneaky "corrections" of me when YOU were the
one that was wrong. Isn't he cute though?

So, to make this as simple and un-nuanced as possible for you, Greg: is
hearsay admissible as evidence in criminal court sometimes?

A "No" from you will show you have not learned yet. A "Yes," will show
you are finally on the way to becoming a man.

By the way, if you believe I am harassing you there is a way to deal
with that. If you stop replying to me and I continue to post to you you
have a very good argument for harassment.

You seem to keep right on not only addressing me by reply, but
initiating threads concerning me and my comments without ME addressing
YOU at all. Notice? The latter might, by your definition, and legal ones
as well, constitute real harassment.

Just in case you wanted to make that harassment claim more official?

But then harassment is deucedly hard to prove, and attempts could
themselves be seen as a form of harassment.

-- Since both of us post publicly willingly and voluntarily.

Man you are stupid.

0:-

7 messages rapid fire in response to one news article?

Clear sign of well organized thought patterns...

Greegor wrote:
7 messages rapid fire in response to one news article?

Clear sign of well organized thought patterns...

And you would have no problem responding to comments made about those
articles when the specific article isn't quoted, as you do in a great
many of your posts, Greg?

Dan Sullivan wrote:
Greegor wrote:
7 messages rapid fire in response to one news article?

Clear sign of well organized thought patterns...

And you would have no problem responding to comments made about those
articles when the specific article isn't quoted, as you do in a great
many of your posts, Greg?

Whiney!

Greegor wrote:
Dan Sullivan wrote:
Greegor wrote:
7 messages rapid fire in response to one news article?

Clear sign of well organized thought patterns...

And you would have no problem responding to comments made about those
articles when the specific article isn't quoted, as you do in a great
many of your posts, Greg?

Whiney!

I'll take your ridiculous comment as you would have a problem
responding, Greg.

As in all your posts.

Greegor wrote:
7 messages rapid fire in response to one news article?
Clear sign of well organized thought patterns...

Dan wrote
And you would have no problem responding to comments made about those
articles when the specific article isn't quoted, as you do in a great
many of your posts, Greg?

Greg wrote
Whiney!

Dan wrote
I'll take your ridiculous comment as you would have a problem
responding, Greg.
As in all your posts.

Kane whined and whined about "attribution abortion" and
it only made him look like Felix Unger, whining about crumbs
on the carpeting or some such Faggotry.

Now you're whining about attribution, Dan?

My you sure do cut to the heart of the issues!

What an effective bit of reasoning! (ROFL!)

Straight to the heart of the issues. (sarcastic)

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
7 messages rapid fire in response to one news article?
Clear sign of well organized thought patterns...

Yep. Laid them out all nice and neat, one after the other, document
after document, like chapters in a book, only here, chapters (posts),
to a newsgroup.

One to help fight against the crime of attribution abortion 0:-, and
two, to help YOU mount some kind of credible argument against some
portion of what I contributed, with a nice large demographic for you to
chose from.

Dan wrote
And you would have no problem responding to comments made about those
articles when the specific article isn't quoted, as you do in a great
many of your posts, Greg?

Greg wrote
Whiney!

Whiney? Dan asks you a question and you call it "Whiney?" What are we
to make of your strange questions loaded with rhetorically formatted
lies then?

Like your infamous long laid to rest but resurrected "Red Cross" lie,
Greg?

Dan wrote
I'll take your ridiculous comment as you would have a problem
responding, Greg.
As in all your posts.

Kane whined and whined about "attribution abortion" and
it only made him look like Felix Unger, whining about crumbs
on the carpeting or some such Faggotry.

Still hung up on that homosexual thing? Now they lie and whine?

Greg, how do you explain plucking a single phrase out of a paragraph
from Ron recently, where you made it appear he was saying "workers
never lie,:" when in fact the subject was "workers don't need to lie
about child abuse," because, as Ron stated clearly, the CHILDREN TELL
THE FOSTER PARENTS, and the foster parents do the reporting of the
abuse allegation to the worker, as they are required to do by statute
and policy?.

That's a faggoty whine by me?

In other words, you got caught lying and now you are attacking the
messenger. That'll work. Ask Doan.

Now you're whining about attribution, Dan?

I'm not sure he is, but his comment cuts right to the issue, Greg. YOU
want proof, but YOU won't give proof.

Pretty simple, eh?

Because, of course, you are a dishonest little piece of ****, excrement
that needs to be flushed.

My you sure do cut to the heart of the issues!

Yes, he sure does. That you constantly lie and are constantly
dishonest.

What an effective bit of reasoning! (ROFL!)

I'd say that if you want proof but won't provide it yourself, then yes,
that is a most effective bit of reasoning and exposure of your
malciousness and lack of ethics.

Straight to the heart of the issues. (sarcastic)

No, you are right on target. As is he. As am I. And other posters here
that recognize what a lying piece of **** you are.